Disentangling the ‘talent’ concept as applied
to the world of work
Eva Gallardo Gallardo
Aquesta tesi doctoral està subjecta a la llicència ReconeixementSenseObraDerivada 3.0. Espanya de Creative Commons.
NoComercial
–
Esta tesis doctoral está sujeta a la licencia Reconocimiento - NoComercial – SinObraDerivada
3.0. España de Creative Commons.
This doctoral thesis is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivs 3.0. Spain License.
Disentangling the ‘talent’ concept as applied to
the world of work
by
Eva Gallardo Gallardo
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Departamentd’EconomiaiOrganitzaciód’Empreses
Facultatd’EconomiaiEmpresa
Barcelona, 2013
Business Doctoral Program
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to
the world of work
by
Eva Gallardo Gallardo
Supervisor:
Prof. Dr. Nicky Dries
Research Centre for Organization Studies, Faculty of Business and
Economics, KU Leuven, Belgium
Tutor:
Prof. Dr. JaumeVallsiPasola
Departamentd’EconomiaiOrganitzaciód’Empreses,
Facultatd’EconomiaiEmpresa, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain
Invictus
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
William Ernest Henley (1849–1903)
Disentangling the ‘talent’ concept as applied to the world of work
Acknowledgements
One of the most frequent sentences I heard from my nearest and dearest during the last
months was: You are almost there! (Referring to the dissertation accomplishment). I
must confess that, although I really appreciate their good wishes, I didn’t believe them
(as far as I know, incredulity is one of the characteristics of ‘veteran’ PhD students).
However, here I am, just sitting in front of a white paper in order to write the last words
of my dissertation work (i.e., they were right). Thank you to all these beloved people. I
couldn’t have done it without you!
‘A dissertation is a story in itself’ wrote one of my dearest friends in her
acknowledgement section. This one started many years ago and, as many other
researches, it did not follow a straight line. Another undeniable fact is that over the
years many debts of gratitude are contracted. Extraordinary people have crossed my
path enriching my life and my professional being. Let me start saying thank you, from
the bottom of my heart, to all of them (forgive me those that I won’t be able to mention
explicitly)!
I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor, Prof. Dr. Nicky Dries, from
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, for taking me on as a PhD student. Thank you, Nicky,
for encouraging me to do a good job, helping me in difficult times and, above all,
showing me that if you really want something, if you really desire it, you can achieve it.
Thanks are extended to Prof. Dr. Jaume Valls, my tutor, for his support and for
consistently urging me along the path to completion Jaume, moltes gràcies!
I am also beholden to Dr. Pedro Gallo, from Universitat de Barcelona, for his guidance,
insightful comments and patience all through the bibliometric analysis. Pedro, muchas
i
Acknowledgements
gracias por enseñarme, guiarme, escucharme, animarme y, sobre todo, por estar ahí.
Ha sido un verdadero placer poder trabajar contigo.
Special thanks are extended to Prof. Dr. Francisco Tarragó, from Universitat de
Barcelona, for his ongoing support, respect and for always caring about my well-being.
Dr. Tarragó, vosté és per mi, un exemple d’integritat, humanitat i saber. Moltes gràcies
per demostrar-me que encara hi ha persones que es preocupen de la gent que tenen al
voltant i que són capaces de defensar una idea o persona si ho consideren oportú.
Gràcies de tot cor!
I would like to thank all the members of the academic community who provided me
with great input, feedback and ideas at different national and international conferences,
and during my research stays at the Universitat de València (Spain) and the
Universidade do Minho (Portugal). I gratefully thank Marian Thunnissen (HU
University of Applied Sciences Utrecht), Ben Fruytier (Radboud University Nijmegen),
and R. W. Griffeth (editor of the Human Resource Management Review), for their
insightful and constructive comments on earlier drafts of chapter one, and special thanks
to Sanne Nijs (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) for her help with the research on talent
identification. I should thank Tomás F. González-Cruz (Universitat de Valéncia) for
introducing me to the talent management topic.
I also owe a debt of gratitude to many colleagues from different fields for their
extraordinary academic and social support (not to mention the many conversations
about this research): Eva Aguayo Lorenzo, PhD. (Tocaya, muchas gracias por tu
respeto profesional, por enseñarme a que hay que tomar perspectiva y ayudarme a
tomarla, por tu ayuda con la econometría pero, sobre todo, por nuestras charlas),
Adoración Álvaro-Moya, PhD. (Dori, gracias a ti aprendí a investigar. Muchas gracias
por creer en mí, por tu apoyo incondicional, tu ayuda en revisiones de textos aportando
siempre un punto de vista diferente al de empresa, por hacerme creer en la
interdisciplinariedad y darme pruebas de un mundo ideal posible), Cristina Ballester
Díez (Cris, gracias por estar ahí. Por apoyarme desde un inicio en mi gran cruzada y
ser un ejemplo para no rendirme. Muchas gracias por tu gran ayuda con la explotación
de la base de datos en excel. Sin ti, no lo hubiera conseguido.), and Patricia GarciaDuran, PhD. (Patricia, eres todo un ejemplo para mí, no sólo como persona sino como
ii
Disentangling the ‘talent’ concept as applied to the world of work
profesora e investigadora. Muchas gracias por tu tiempo y ayuda con revisiones de
textos, por nuestras conversaciones, y por conseguir hacerme sentir especial).
For finantially supporting my research at some point during the past years: Thank you to
the Department of Economics and Business Organization of the Universitat de
Barcelona (UB) and the Department of Economics and Business of the Universitat
Oberta de Catalunya (UOC). A special mention is deserved by the librarians of the
Faculty of Economics and Business at the UB, and of the UOC, particularly those in
charge of the ‘document request service’, for their professional work.
For all the their social support, thank you to my colleagues at the Universitat de
Barcelona, specially, to Cor Mª Espluga (Cor, ja saps que ets la meva font de
sabiduria), Ana Nuñez Carballosa, PhD (Ana, gracias por escucharme y preocuparte
por mí), Mercè Claramunt, PhD and Anna Castañer, PhD (Mercè i Anna, moltíssimes
gràcies pel vostre support i les nostres converses sobre investigació. Heu sigut un
suport molt important per mí. Gràcies de tot cor!), Marina Solé, PhD (Marina, moltes
gràcies per confiar en mi i donar-me l’oportunitat de treballar amb tu), Salvador
Carrasco, PhD (Salvador, gracias por no dejar de luchar por hacer una Universidad
mejor y por dar oportunidades), Jose López Parada, PhD (Muchas gracias, Jose, por tu
confianza, respeto y tus siempre buenas palabras), Paloma Miravitlles, PhD, Laura
Guitart, PhD, Prof. Dr. José Mª Castán, Mrs. Marta Zaragoza, Mrs. Aïda Bravo, Natalia
Jaría, PhD and Mrs. Eloísa Pérez, and all her colleagues at the Doctoral Office. I would
also acknowledge my colleagues at the Department of Economics and Business studies
at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya for introducing me into the virtual higher
education, and its research possibilities. I would like to make a special mention to
Àngels Fitó, PhD. (Moltes gràcies per recolçar la meva investigació), Elisabet
Motellón, PhD. (Eli, gracias por nuestras charlas académicas y por tu respeto
profesional), Mrs. María Lozano (María: gracias por hacer fácil mi trabajo. Es una
suerte tenerte como técnica) and Mrs. Noemí García (Noemí, gracias por tu inestimable
ayuda con los trámites y gestiones para congresos y por tus, siempre, humanas
palabras).
Last, but certainly not least, this dissertation will never have being accomplished
without the infinite support and patience of my family and friends (they know who they
iii
Acknowledgements
are) who not only gave support throughout this quest, but also who understood my
absence from many social meetings. You are the best!
This manuscript is dedicated to Jaime, who inspired me to achieve every single
academic challenge (Jaime, es un exemplo de tenacidade e valentía para min. Moitas
grazas polo teu amor incondicional e o teu respeto polo meu traballo. Tamén, grazas
por conseguir que nunca abandonase), to my parents and parents-in-law, who always
respect my decisions and gave me an uncomplaining support (Moitas grazas por
axudarme a crecer como persoa e como profesional), to my sister (Bety), sisters and
brothers-in-law, but specially to Fani, Iria and Diego (Sé que ha sido muy difícil tener a
una tía/madrina siempre trabajando. Infinitas gracias por esas sonrisas y esos abrazos
que tanto me han ayudado).
Barcelona, July 2013
iv
Disentangling the ‘talent’ concept as applied to the world of work
Table of Contents
List of Tables........................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xi
List of Appendix A Sections ................................................................................................. xiii
INTRODUCTION----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
CHAPTER 1. What is the meaning of ‘talent’ in the world of work?--------------------------- 15
1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 19
1.2 The etymological history of the term ‘talent’ ................................................................... 21
1.3 Approaches to talent in the world of work ....................................................................... 28
1.3.1 Object Approach: Talent as characteristics of people .............................................. 28
1.3.1.1 Talent as natural ability ...................................................................................... 30
1.3.1.2 Talent as mastery ................................................................................................ 31
1.3.1.3 Talent as commitment ........................................................................................ 32
1.3.1.4 Talent as fit ......................................................................................................... 33
1.3.2 Subject Approach: Talent as people ......................................................................... 35
1.3.2.1. Inclusive subject interpretation: Talent as all people ........................................ 35
1.3.2.2 Exclusive approach interpretation: Talent as some people................................. 37
1.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 42
1.5 Implications for HR practice ............................................................................................ 45
1.6 Further avenues for research ............................................................................................ 47
References .............................................................................................................................. 50
v
List of Tables
CHAPTER 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review ---------------------------- 61
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 65
2.2 Talent identification within HRM literature ..................................................................... 66
2.3 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 70
2.4 Subdivision of talent into two main components ............................................................. 73
2.4.1 The ability component of talent ............................................................................... 74
2.4.1.1 Definition ............................................................................................................ 74
2.4.1.2 Identification....................................................................................................... 77
2.4.2 The affective component of talent............................................................................ 79
2.4.2.1 Definition ............................................................................................................ 79
2.4.2.2 Identification....................................................................................................... 83
2.5 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 88
2.5.1 Tensions between talent and related concepts.......................................................... 88
2.5.2 Tensions between different literature streams .......................................................... 91
2.6 Managerial relevance ....................................................................................................... 93
2.7 Further avenues for research .......................................................................................... 100
2.7.1 Contextualizing talent ............................................................................................ 101
2.7.2 From the individual to the team level .................................................................... 101
2.7.3 In search of a healthy balance between self- and other-identification ................... 102
2.7.4 Inserting employees into the equation.................................................................... 103
References ............................................................................................................................ 105
CHAPTER 3. Exploring the TM literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013) -----------117
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 121
3.2 Objectives and hypotheses ............................................................................................. 123
3.3 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 126
3.4 Results ............................................................................................................................ 131
vi
Disentangling the ‘talent’ concept as applied to the world of work
3.4.1 Productivity ............................................................................................................ 131
3.4.1.1 Time evolution of the scientific production ..................................................... 132
3.4.1.2 Dispersion of the scientific literature................................................................ 133
3.4.1.3 Authors’ productivity ....................................................................................... 140
3.4.1.4 Institutional distribution of publications........................................................... 144
3.4.1.5 Geographic distribution of publications ........................................................... 146
3.4.2 Visibility and impact .............................................................................................. 152
3.4.3 Collaboration .......................................................................................................... 160
3.5 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 163
3.6 Limitations of the study.................................................................................................. 168
3.7 Further avenues for research .......................................................................................... 170
References ............................................................................................................................ 172
CONCLUSIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------179
APPENDIXES -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------193
Appendix A. Additional data .......................................................................................... 195
Appendix B. Outcomes of this dissertation..................................................................... 233
vii
List of Tables
viii
Disentangling the ‘talent’ concept as applied to the world of work
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Different definitions of talent in the world of work..................................................... 21
Table 1.2. Definitions of talent in contemporary English dictionaries ......................................... 27
Table 1.3. Terms commonly associated with ‘talent-as-object’ in the literature .......................... 30
Table 2.1. Talent definition and its components by different literature streams........................... 91
Table 2.2. Talent identification measures and methods................................................................ 94
Table 3.1 Searches executed and number of documents obtained.............................................. 127
Table 3.2 Search criteria established in each database ............................................................... 128
Table 3.3 Database’s fields and its operationalization ............................................................... 129
Table 3.4 General data of the bibliometric study........................................................................ 131
Table 3.5 Distribution of publications among years ................................................................... 134
Table 3.6 Bradford’s zones for TM literature distribution ......................................................... 137
Table 3.7 Ranking of journals ordered by productivity (n 3) .................................................. 139
Table 3.8 Authors’ productivity ................................................................................................. 140
Table 3.9 Top most productive authors (n > 3) .......................................................................... 143
Table 3.10 Top 10 most productive institutions ......................................................................... 145
Table 3.11 Journals with cumulative IF (n>2) [1997-2011] ....................................................... 155
Table 3.12 Distribution of documents according to citations and year of publication ............... 156
Table 3.13 Top 40 most cited authors ........................................................................................ 158
Table 3.14 Number of authors per document ............................................................................. 162
ix
List of Tables
x
Disentangling the ‘talent’ concept as applied to the world of work
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 ‘Talent’ meanings over time .......................................................................................... 28
Figure 1.2 Framework for the conceptualization of talent within the world of work ...................... 42
Figure 2.1 Number of articles selected from BSP and PsycINFO according to keywords used ..... 73
Figure 3.1 Volume of TM publications from 1990 to 2013 .......................................................... 133
Figure 3.2 Concentration curve of documents according to journals ............................................ 136
Figure 3.3 Geographic distribution of number of publications about TM (1990-2013) ................ 146
Figure 3.4 Percentual distribution of publications per country...................................................... 147
Figure 3.5 Scientific production on TM by country and GDP per capita ...................................... 148
Figure 3.6 TM research on countries with low levels of GDP (1,710 – 19,487) ........................... 149
Figure 3.7 TM research on countries with medium levels of GDP (20,328 – 39,456) .................. 149
Figure 3.8 TM research on countries with high levels of GDP (40,420 – 60,688) ........................ 149
Figure 3.9 Scientific production and nature of affiliation ............................................................. 150
Figure 3.10 Scientific production and nature of affiliation (without USA and UK) ..................... 152
Figure 3.11 Number of documents published in journals with IF ................................................. 153
Figure 3.12 Distribution of TM publications according to authors’ afiliation............................... 154
Figure 3.13 Is the document co-authored? .................................................................................... 161
Figure 3.14 Number of documents co-authored per year .............................................................. 162
xi
List of Figures
xii
Disentangling the ‘talent’ concept as applied to the world of work
List of Appendix A Sections
A.1 Number and nature of documents selected from BSP and PsycINFO ................................. 197
A.2 Distribution of publications on TM over time ..................................................................... 198
A.3 Dispersion of the scientific literature on TM over time ....................................................... 199
A.4 Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of Lotka’s Law .......................................................................... 213
A.5 Geographic distribution of TM research (1990-2013) ......................................................... 220
A.6 GDP per capita and population data of TM related countries.............................................. 221
A.7 Academic and non academic contributions to TM literature per country ............................ 223
A.8 Number of documents published in journals with IF........................................................... 224
A.9 Top 40 most cited authors by Scopus and Google Scholar.................................................. 225
A.10 Correlations among number of authors and citations ........................................................ 226
A.11 Details of co-authorship per year ....................................................................................... 230
A.12 Information on the kind of collaboration per year ............................................................. 231
A.13 Average number of citations .............................................................................................. 232
xiii
List of Appendix A Sections
xiv
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Introduction
1
Introduction
2
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
During the last few days I have found that attempting to answer the question ‘What is talent?’ is
far more troublesome than you might think. Recently, I accepted an invitation to attend what
was described as a ‘thinking breakfast’ organised by the Talent Foundation
(www.talentfoundation.com). We sat at different tables in groups of eight or so drinking coffee (I
stuck to water because I’ve heard it is better for the brain!) and eating croissants. We were
asked to put our heads together and do a talent stock-take. Specifically we were asked to think of
the pressing issues of the day and to suggest useful themes for the Foundation to focus on in its
future work.
Inevitably someone at our table suggested we should start by agreeing what we meant by talent.
My heart sank as it always does when I’m invited to partake in some communal defining. Past
experience tells me that this sort of activity takes an inordinate amount of time, leads to a
strangely inconclusive conversation and results in an uneasy compromise in a desperate bid to
accommodate irreconcilable views. I’d much rather skip this cerebral activity (especially at
breakfast time!) and look up the word in a dictionary.
So I resisted by saying something dismissive like, ‘Let’s assume we all know what we mean.’ The
irony of this is that, in my days as a management consultant, I used to intervene, gently but
firmly, whenever I heard a remark like this and caution people about the perils of continuing
until they had an agreed understanding. Once, I even had a colleague who used to leap up, write
the offending word on a flipchart, and insist it was defined to everyone’s satisfaction before
allowing them to proceed. If they couldn’t agree what they meant by words such as ‘strategy’,
‘quality’, ‘competencies’ and ‘paradigm’, the words were banned!
Fortunately, I had a few allies on my table and the call for us to spend time defining talent was
successfully resisted. Instead, we settled down to swap ideas about talent shortages and the war
for talent, how people were undervalued, attrition rates and the challenge to retain talented
people, how most organisations are not talent-friendly and so on. All good stuff – and no
definition in sight.
Extract from ‘What is Talent?’ by Dr. Peter Honey (December 2004)
The well-known phrase ‘the war for talent’ introduced by a group of McKinsey
consultants in the late 1990s (Chambers et al., 1998) sparked the current day interest in
talent management (TM). Over the last two decades TM has become an increasingly
popular topic (Chuai, Preece, & Iles, 2008; Höglund, 2012), and the TM literature has
3
Introduction
experienced substantial growth, particularly sizable in recent years (Chabault, Hulin, &
Soparnot, 2012; Jones, 2008; Iles, Preece, & Chuai, 2010). Deep in an economic
downturn, TM is seen as a high-priority issue for organizations worldwide (Bhatnagar,
2008; Mäkelä, Björkman, & Ehrnrooth, 2010). In fact, TM is considered a critical
element for organizational success and sustainability.Nonetheless, TM is subject to
intense criticism. Despite the many articles, books, and rhetorical efforts that have been
devoted to it over more than a decade, TM suffers from conceptual confusion. In short,
and subscribing Honey’s words in the previous quotation “all good stuff—and no
definition in sight”. Why is it so difficult to define talent management? Why is it so
important to have a definition? Why hastalent management become so important? How
much do we know about it? Is talent management a new discipline or just ‘old wine in
new bottles’1? What is talent? Is it a person? Is it a characteristic of a person? Does it
mean the same in every organization? Is that important? How do organizations identify
it?The present study has arisen from the intellectual restlessness these questions have
awakened in the author. It is surely not the first time that a researcher has wondered
about such issues, although, surprisingly few had dared to tackle them to date. As a
consequence, lots of interesting questions are still without answers and the research
reported in this dissertation aims to provide some.
The thesis is divided into three main chapters. In the first chapter, we deal with the
question that marks the starting point for our research: What is meant by talent in the
world of work?We did not come to this question accidentally. Rather, it lies at the heart
of a bigger question: What is meant by talent management?In 2009, when starting
1
Chuai, Preece and Iles (2008) used a similar question as the main title for one of the first seminal articles on this
topic.
4
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
reviewing the literature we facedthe seminal work of Lewis and Heckman (2006). In
this work, these authors argued that,
“the term ‘talent management’has no clear meaning. It is used in too many
ways and is often to means to highlight the ‘strategic’ importance of a HR
specialty (recruiting, selection, development, etc.) without adding to the
theory or practice of that specialty. Or, it is employed to pitch a compelling
anecdote regarding the importance of managing talent. ‘Talent’ is essentially
a euphemism for ‘people’ and because the perspectives regarding how people
can and should be managed varies so greatly the TM literature can
recommend contradictory advice” (p. 141).
But, was talent always used as a euphemism for people? How can TM research
advance without clearly stating what was understood by talent? So, it became logical to
focus on clarifying the meaning of talent. According to Maxwell and MacLean (2008)
“whatever the meaning/s of TM, it is a concept that centres on ‘talent’, which in turn
needs to be defined” (p. 822).It really became a challenge. In reviewing the literature a
cornucopia of talent definitions and opinions emerged, highly influenced by the type of
industry, organization, and the nature of its work dynamic (cf. Iles, Chuai & Preece,
2010; Tansley et al., 2007). Organizations prefer ‘local definitions’ over universal or
prescribed ones, because of the their ability to fit and tailor the talent concept around
organizational goals (Scott & Revis, 2008; Tansley et al., 2007). Ironically, in spite of
the enormous number of articles and books addressing talent from a managerial point of
view, we found little evidence of concern about truly understanding the talent concept2.
Moreover, even in some reference works, this term is not delimited but it is simply
2
In 2000, Williams included in his book a chapter called What is ‘Talent’? It is the first reference we have found that
try to clarify the concept before talking about TM. One year later, Michaels, Handfield-Jones, and Axelrod inserted a
‘What is talent?’ section in the preface of their seminal book, The war for talent, where they define talent and
managerial talent. Also in 2001, Pilar Jericó—a Spanish pioneer of TM—published her first book (Gestión del
Talento: Del profesional con talento al talento organizativo), and an article (La gestión del talento: enfoque
conceptual y empírico) where she defined, not only the talent concept, but also the TM one. Since then, it was not
until 2007 that few works give to this question the importance that it deserves. These works can be group by articles
(Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Chabault et al., 2012; González Cruz, Martínez-Fuentes, & Pardo-del-Val, 2009; Iles,
Chuai, & Preece, 2010) and books (Davies & Kourdi, 2010; Silzer & Dowell, 2010; Tansley et al., 2007; Thorne &
Pellant, 2007; Weiss & MacKay, 2009). Moreover, Eddie Blass (2009) in his book Talent Management: Cases and
commentary, although he does not give any concrete definition of the concept, he dedicates its third chapter entirely
to discuss six of the dimensions related to the issue of defining talent. In spite of these recent attempts of clarification,
there is still not a consensus.
5
Introduction
taken for granted 3 . The truth of the matter is that the ongoing confusion about the
meaning of ‘talent’ within the world of work is hindering the establishment of widely
accepted talent management theories and practices. Hence, the aim of this first chapter
is to contribute to the literature on talent management by offering an in-depth review of
the talent concept within the specific context of the world of work, and proposing a
framework for its conceptualization. We group different theoretical approaches to talent
into ‘object’ (i.e., talent as natural ability; talent as mastery; talent as commitment;
talent as fit) and ‘subject’ approaches (i.e., talent as all people; talent as some people)
and identify dynamics existing within and between them, as well as implications for
talent management theory and practice. Finally, we discuss different avenues for further
research aimed at developing the talent—and consequently, the talent management—
construct further.
Chapter 2 goes on to deal with the next challenging question: How is talent identified?
Despite all the talk about talent and its importance for achieving new sources of
competitive advantages, most companies havenot yet capitalized on the opportunity for
strategic success that effective talent identification can provide. Significant investments
to ‘win the war for talent’ are made (even in recession times) but the big question,
within the HRM domain,remains largely unaddressed in the academic literature: How
can organizations identify talent? In fact, organizations report great difficulty in
operationalizing and measuring talent accurately, reflecting the lack of theoretical
foundations for talent identification. Building on from insights from different literature
streams (giftenedness literature, vocational psychology, and positive psychology), this
3
Representative cases are Axelrod, Handfield-Jones, & Welsh, 2001; Bodden, Glucksman, & Lasky, 2000; Cappelli,
2008; Chambers et al., 1998; Effron & Ort, 2010; Gardner, 2002; Hamel, 1999; Hiltrop, 1999; Hooghiemstra, 1990;
Lawler III, 2008; O’Reilly & Pfeffer, 2000; Schiemann, 2009, Sturman et al., 2003. Note that some influential works,
like those from the McKinsey consultancy, are among these publications. Moreover, neither the Dictionary of
Business and Management (Oxford University Press, 2009) nor the Dictionary of Human Resource Management
(Oxford University Press, 2008) contain an entry for talent.
6
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
chapter aims to contribute to the establishment of a stronger theoretical basis for talent
management by discussing two components of talent (an ability and an affective
component) that are complementary. Moreover, we identify three central characteristics
of talent (manifestation in excellent performance, developed innate abilities and
passion) that will help us to distinguish between talent, competence and potential;
terms, that are usually misused as interchangeable within TM field. In addition, we
argue how this distinction will help in talent identification. We also provide a summary
with different discussed measures and methods to identify talent. By discussing
managerial implications in terms of measures and methods, we provide practical
guidelines for designing talent identification practices grounded in sound theory.
Finally, in Chapter 3, we go back to the origins and broaden the scope of our questions
toconcentrate our efforts on the talent management construct. We decided to approach
the conceptualization of TM in the literaturethrough a proxy research question: How
much do we know about talent management?As mentioned before, despite its growing
popularity and the specific academic attention to TM during the past years, it remains in
its infancy since there is a lack of clarity regarding its definition, scope and overall
goals (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Garrow & Hirsh, 2008; Lewis & Heckman, 2006).
The lack of theoretical foundations and conceptual development in TM literature can be
attributed in part to the fact that most of the literature in this field is practitioner or
consultancy based (Iles, Chuai et al., 2010; Preece, Iles, & Chuai, 2011). Recently,
some authors concluded that TM as a discipline has made some progress towards
adolescence mainly due to the contribution of many scholars using North American
thinking and research (Collings, Scullion & Vaiman, 2011). In fact, Thunnissen, Boselie
and Fruytier (2013) in their literature review confirmed that the majority of scholars
7
Introduction
publishing about TM are from the United States. Although Thunnissen et al. (2013)
made an attempt to provide a critical review of the academic literature on TM, there has
been no full review study of the scientific production about it. Hence, in this last
chapter, we aim to offer objective data that describe the reality of TM research by
analyzing the contributions to the field at three levels. First, we focus on productivity
(e.g., number of papers published by each author, the country of origin, and each
author’s affiliation). Second, we analyze visibility and impact of the publications (e.g.,
ranking of documents according to citations, documents published in indexed journals,
ranking of authors according to number of papers published and its citations). Third, we
study collaboration in TM research (i.e., co-authorship). The results of this bibliometric
research will allow us not only to analyze the structure of the TM research (e.g., most
prominent authors, leading journals, countries and institutions involved), but also to
define its boundaries and trends. Our study will allow us to reveal underlying patterns in
scientific outputs and academic collaborations and may serve as an alternative and
innovative way of revealing global research trends in TM. It should be noted that this
bibliometric analysis is the first to address a complete and in-depth analysis of the
structure of the field of TM as an academic discipline. It will allow new researchers into
the field to be fully aware of seminal authors and must-read articles, as well as
identifying those journals and institutions most closely related to this subject.
8
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
References
Axelrod, E. L., Handfield-Jones, H., & Welsh, T. A. (2001) War for talent, part two.
The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 9-11.
Beechler, S., & Woodward, I. C. (2009). The global war for talent. Journal of
International Management, 15(3), 273-285.
Bhatnagar, J. (2008) Managing capabilities for talent engagement and pipeline
development, Industrial and Commercial Training, 40(1), 19-28.
Blass, E. (Ed.) (2009). Talent management: Cases and commentary. Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Bodden,S., Glucksman, M., & Lasky, P. (2000). The war for technical talent. The
McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 14-15.
Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent on demand: Managing talent in an age of uncertainty.
Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Chabault, D., Hulin, A., & Soparnot, R. (2012). Talent management in clusters.
Organizational Dynamics, 41(4), 327-335.
Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, J., Hankin, S. M., & Michaels III, E. G.
(1998). The war for talent, The McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 44-57.
Chuai, X., Preece, D. & Iles, P. (2008). Is talent management just “old wine in new
bottles”?: The case of multinational companies in Beijing. Management
Research News, 31(12), 901-911.
Collings, D. G. & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and
research agenda. Human Resource Management Review,19(4), 304-313.
Collings, D.G., Scullion, H., & Vaiman, V. (2011). European perspectives on talent
management.European Journal of International Management,5(5), 453–462.
9
Introduction
Davies, J.,& Kourdi, J. (2010)The truth about talent: A guide to building a dynamic
workforce, realizing potential and helping leaders succeed. Chichester: Jonh
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Effron, M., & Ort, M. (2010). One page talent management:Eliminating complexity,
adding value. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Gardner, T. M. (2002). In the trenches at the talent wars: Competitive interaction for
scarce human resources, Human Resource Management, 41(2), 225-237.
Garrow, V., & Hirsh, W. (2008). Talent management: Issues of Focus and Fit. Public
Personnel Management, 37(4), 389-402.
González-Cruz, T., Martínez-Fuentes, C., & Pardo-del-Val, M. (2009). La gestión del
talento en la empresa industrial española [Talent management in Spanish
industry]. Economía Industrial, 374, 21-35.
Hamel, G. (1999). Bringing Silicon Valley inside. Harvard Business Review,77(5), 7087.
Hiltrop, J.-M. (1999). The quest for the best: Human Resource practices to attract and
retain talent, European Management Journal,17(4), 422-430.
Höglund, M. (2012). Quid pro quo? Examining talent management through the lens of
psychological contracts. Personnel Review, 41(2), 126-142.
Honey, P. (2004, December). What is talent? Training Journal, 11.
Hooghiemstra, T. (1990). Management of talent, European Management Journal, 8(2),
142-149.
Iles, P., Chuai, X., & Preece, D. (2010). Talent Management and HRM in Multinational
companies in Beijing: Definitions, differences and drivers. Journal of World
Business, 45(2), 179-189.
10
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Iles, P., Preece, D., & Chuai, X. (2010). Talent management as a management fashion
in HRD: towards a research agenda. Human Resource Development
International, 13(2), 125-145.
Jericó, P. (2001a). Gestión del talento: Enfoque conceptual y empírico[Talent
management: A conceptual and empirical approach]. Boletín de Estudios
Económicos, LVI(174), 423-441.
Jericó, P. (2001b). Gestión del talento: del profesional con talento al talento
organizativo[Talent
management:
From
the
talented
professional
to
organizational talent]. Madrid: Prentice Hall-Financial Times.
Jones, R. (2008). Social capital: bridging the link between talent management and
knowledge management. In V. Vaiman & C. M. Vance (Eds.), Smart talent
management: Building knowledge assets for competitive advantage (pp. 217233). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lawler III, E. E. (2008). Talent: Making people your competitive advantage. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent Management: A critical review. Human
Resource Management Review,16(2), 139-154.
Mäkela, K., Björkman, I., & Ehrnrooth, M. (2010). How do MNCs establish their talent
pools? Influences on individuals’ likelihood of being labeled as talent. Journal
of World Business, 45(2), 134-142.
Maxwell, G. A., & MacLean, S. (2008). Talent Management in hospitality and tourism
in Scotland: Operational implications and strategic actions. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), 820-830.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
11
Introduction
O’Reilly, C. A., & Pfeffer, J. (2000). Cisco Systems: Acquiring and retaining talent in
hypercompetitive markets. Human Resource Planning, 23(3), 38-52.
Preece, D., Iles, P., & Chuai, X. (2011). Talent management and management fashion in
Chinese enterprises: exploring case studies in Beijing. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(16), 3413-3428.
Schiemann, W. A. (2009). Reinventing talent management: How to maximize
performance in the new marketplace. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Scott, B., & Revis, S. (2008). Talent management in hospitality: graduate career success
and strategies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality, 20(7), 781791.
Silzer, R., & Dowell, B. E. (Eds.) (2010). Strategy-Driven Talent Management: A
leadership imperative. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Sturman, M. C., Trevor, C. O., Boudreau, J. W., & Gerhart, B. (2003). Is it worth it to
win the talent war? Evaluating the utility of performance-based pay. Personnel
Psychology, 56(4), 997-1035.
Tansley, C., Turner, P., Carley, F., Harris, L., Sempik, A., Stewart, J., & Williams, H.
(2007). Talent: Strategy, management, measurement. London: Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).
Thorne, K.,& Pellant, A. (2007). The essential guide to managing talent: How top
companies recruit, train & retain the best employees. London: Kogan Page.
Thunnissen, M., Boselie P., & Fruytier, B. (in press). Talent management and the
relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach [Special issue]. Human
Resource Management Review.
Weiss, A., & MacKay, N. (2009). The talent advantage: How to attract and retain the
best and the brightest. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
12
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Williams, M. (2000). The war for talent: Getting the best from the best. London:
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).
13
Introduction
14
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Chapter 1.
What Is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of
Work?
15
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
16
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
What Is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet”
William Shakespeare
[Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene 2]
An adaptation of this chapter has already been published in the Human Resource Management Review.
Moreover, it has been presented at different international conferences. Full details in Appendix B.
17
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
18
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
What Is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
1.1 Introduction
Ever since 1998, when a group of McKinsey consultants coined the expression ‘war for
talent’ and posited that a fundamental belief in the importance of talent is needed to
achieve organizational excellence (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001), talent
management (TM) has been an increasingly popular topic (Chuai, Preece, & Iles, 2008).
In recent years, a notable increase in the number of articles and books relating to TM is
observed as it is seen more and more as a high-priority issue for organizations
worldwide (Iles, Preece, & Chuai, 2010). Proper talent management is considered a
critical determinant of organizational success (Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Iles,
Chuai, & Preece, 2010), and imperative for the livelihood and sustainability of
organizations (Lawler, 2008).
In spite of its growing popularity and more than a decade of debate, however, the
construct of TM suffers from conceptual confusion in that there is a serious lack of
clarity regarding its definition, scope and overall goals (Lewis & Heckman, 2006;
Tansley et al., 2007). The lack of theoretical foundations and conceptual development
in the TM literature can be attributed in part to the fact that most of the literature in this
field is practitioner- or consultancy-based (Iles, Chuai et al., 2010; Preece, Iles, &
Chuai, 2011). This latter finding also accounts for the literature’s focus on practices (the
‘how’) rather than on ‘who’ is considered talented and ‘why’.
19
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
An increasing number of authors (e.g., Garrow & Hirsh, 2008; Lewis & Heckman,
2006; Reilly, 2008; Tansley et al., 2007) attribute the ambiguity inherent to the TM
construct to the inadequate operationalization of the underlying construct talent. Quite
surprisingly, TM scholars are rarely precise about what exactly they mean by talent,
probably because there are widely held implicit theories about what talent is (Barab &
Plucker, 2002). In fact, in many articles (e.g., Collings & Mellahi, 2009; O’Reilly &
Pfeffer, 2000) and books (e.g., Cappelli, 2008; Lawler, 2008) about TM, talent as an
underlying construct is taken for granted and thus not defined explicitly.
It appears that talent can mean whatever a business leader or writer wants it to mean,
since everyone has his or her own idea of what the construct does and does not
encompass (Ulrich, 2011). In fact, many different definitions of talent can be found in
the academic human resource management (HRM) literature (see Table 1). In addition,
in the HR practitioner literature we find a great deal of organizationally specific
definitions of talent, highly influenced by the type of industry or occupational field
(Tansley et al., 2007). As we will discuss throughout this chapter, a number of
important discussions arise from the wide variation found in the literature about the
meaning of talent—does talent refers to people (subject) or to the characteristics of
people (object)? Is talent more about performance, potential, competence, or
commitment? Is talent a natural ability or does it relates more to mastery through
practice? Is it better to take an inclusive or an exclusive approach to talent
management?
20
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Table 1.1
Different definitions of talent in the world of work
Source
Definition of Talent
Gagné (2000)
“(…) superior mastery of systematically developed abilities or skills” (p. 67)
Williams (2000)
“describe those people who do one or other of the following: regularly demonstrate
exceptional ability-and achievement- either over a range of activities and situations,
or within a specialized and narrow field of expertise; consistently indicate high
competence in areas of activity that strongly suggest transferable, comparable ability
in situations where they have yet to be tested and proved to be highly effective, i.e.
potential.” (p. 35)
Buckingham
&
“Talent should refer to a person’s recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior
Vosburgh (2001)
that can be productively applied.” (p. 21)
Jericó (2001)
“The implemented capacity of a committed professional or group of professionals that
achieve superior results in a particular environment and organization.” (p. 428;
translation ours)
Michaels et al. (2001)
“(…) the sum of a person’s abilities -his or her intrinsic gifts, skills, knowledge,
experience, intelligence, judgment, attitude, character and drive. It also includes his or
her ability to learn and grow.” (p. xii)
Lewis
&
Heckman
“(…) is essentially a euphemism for ‘people’” (p. 141)
(2006)
Tansley et al. (2006)
“Talent can be considered as a complex amalgam of employees’ skills, knowledge,
cognitive ability and potential. Employees’ values and work preferences are also of
major importance.” (p. 2)
Stahl et al. (2007)
“a select group of employees- those that rank at the top in terms of capability and
performance- rather than the entire workforce”. (p. 4)
Tansley et al. (2007)
“Talent consists of those individuals who can make a difference to organizational
performance, either through their immediate contribution or in the longer-term by
demonstrating the highest levels of potential.” (p. 8)
Ulrich (2007)
“Talent equals competence [able to do the job] times commitment [willing to do the
job] times contribution [finding meaning and purpose in their work]” (p. 3)
Cheese,
Thomas,
&
“Essentially, talent means the total of all the experience, knowledge, skills, and
Craig (2008)
behaviours that a person has and brings to work.” (p. 46)
González-Cruz et al.
“A set of competencies that, being developed and applied, allow the person to
(2009)
perform a certain role in an excellent way.” (p 22; translation ours)
Silzer & Dowell (2010)
“(…) in some cases, ‘the talent’ might refer to the entire employee population.” (p.
14)
Silzer & Dowell (2010)
“In groups talent can refer to a pool of employees who are exceptional in their skills
and abilities either in a specific technical area (such as software graphics skills) or a
competency (such a consumer marketing talent), or a more general area (such as
general managers or high-potential talent). And in some cases, “the talent” might refer
to the entire employee population.” (pp. 13-14)
Silzer & Dowell (2010)
“An individual’s skills and abilities (talents) and what the person is capable of doing
or contributing to the organization.” (p. 14)
21
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
Table 1.1. Continued
Source
Definition of Talent
Bethke-Langenegger
“we understand talent to be one of those worker who ensures the competitiveness and
(2012)
future of a company (as specialist or leader) through his organisational/job specific
qualification and knowledge, his social and methodical competencies, and his
characteristic attributes such as eager to learn or achievement oriented” (p. 3)
Ulrich & Smallwood
“Talent = competence [knowledge, skills and values required for todays’ and
(2012)
tomorrows’ job; right skills, right place, right job, right time] x commitment [willing
to do the job] x contribution [finding meaning and purpose in their job]” (p. 60)
The ongoing confusion about the meaning of talent is hindering the establishment of
widely acknowledged TM theories and practices, thus stalling scholarly advancement.
In addition, the lack of construct clarity might lead to a lack of confidence in the
conclusions that can be drawn from the existing literature. Therefore, the aim of the
current chapter is to contribute to the theoretical literature on TM by offering an indepth review of the talent concept within the specific context of the world of work, and
proposing a framework for its conceptualization that organizes and dissects the different
viewpoints found in the existing literature in a straightforward manner. In order to
accomplish this aim, we have carried outan in-depth review of the literature on talent
and TM.
An online search was conducted across several databases—i.e., Science Direct,
Business Source Complete, Emerald, and Google Scholar. ‘Talent’ and ‘talent
management’ were the keywords used. Although our focus was on scholarly peerreviewed articles, we also included some HR practitioner publications that are
frequently cited in the academic literature. Ultimately, our review included 170 peerreviewed articles, 9 doctoral dissertations, 3 conference papers, 40 books, 6 working
papers, and 20 HR practitioner reports. We supplemented our review of the academic
22
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
literature with a search into the linguistic origins of the term talent, using 10 different
reference books published by Oxford University Press (see further down).
In what follows, we first offer a discussion of the etymology of the term ‘talent’ and its
linguistic evolution over time, with the purpose of shedding light on contemporary
usage of the term in organizational settings. Subsequently, we discuss different
approaches to the conceptualization of talent within the world of work, organizing these
within a basic framework (i.e., ‘object’ versus ‘subject’). We then move on to discuss
the implications of these different approaches for talent management theory and
practice. We conclude this chapter with avenues for future research, aimed at
developing the talent—and consequently, the talent management—construct further.
1.2The etymological history of the term ‘talent’
The term talent is everywhere. One needs only to take a look at the headlines of
newspapers, journals, and magazines, to see how often the term is actually used—a
Google search reveals nearly six hundred million hits. Moreover, there is a growing
number of shows on television that showcase talent, such as “Britain’s Got Talent” and
its international counterparts (Pruis, 2011). In everyday parlance, talent is typically
associated with athletes (e.g. Olympians, exceptional coaches, extraordinary teams),
musicians of extraordinary ability, singers with incredible voices, and gifted children.
Asking for a clear definition, however, is like “opening a can of worms” (Honey, 2004,
p. 11). As for talent in the work context, the situation is quite the same. One possible
explanation for this conceptual ambiguity is the history of the word talent—considering
the different meanings it has had throughout its over one thousand years of existence.
23
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
The term talent in Old English (used up until 1149) was talente, whichdeveloped from
the Latin term talenta, plural of talentum (Knowles, 2005; Stevenson, 2010). The Latin
term, in turn, originated from the Greek word tálanton [], which means
“balance, weight, sum of money” (Hoad, 1996). Originally, a talent denoted a unit of
weight used by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks and Romans (Cresswell, 2009). In
Ancient Greece, one talent was the equivalent of 25.86 kg (Darvill, 2008; Howatson,
2011). According to Howatson (2011), before proper coinage, Greek units of money
carried the same name as units of weight since the weights of precious metals (mostly
silver, occasionally gold) were used to represent a sum of money (Knowles, 2005;
Howatson, 2011). This is how, ultimately, a ‘talent’ became a coin. One talent
corresponded to 60 minas or 6,000 drachmas (Howatson, 2011). This was an enormous
amount of money at that time as 3.5 drachmas was the normal wage for a week’s work
(Darvill, 2008), and 50 minas (i.e., less than one talent) was seen as the amount one
would pay for a very large house—an ordinary dwelling could be bought for three
minas (Howatson, 2011). Hence, talents were exclusive; only rich people had them.
The Parable of the Talents in the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament (25: 14-30)
attests to the value attributed to talent. The parable talks about a wealthy man who,
before going on a long journey, gives his three servants one, two, and five talents
respectively—based on his perception of each of their abilities—for safekeeping. The
servants who received five and two talents both use their coins well, doubling their
value through hard work and trading. The servant who was given only one talent,
however—afraid to lose his coin and anger his master—buries his coin in the ground.
After an extended absence, the master returns, commending the two servants who
doubled their talents as good and faithful (and rewarding them by letting them keep
24
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
their profits), whilst calling the servant who had buried his coin wicked and slothful,
and ordering him to hand over his one talent to the servant who has most. According to
Tansley (2011), since the New English Bible translates the Greek word talent into the
word capital, this parable can be seen as one of the causes for HRM scholars using the
term human capital as synonymous to talent.
In the thirteenth century, talent was seen either as the feeling that makes a person want
to do something (i.e., an inclination), or the natural qualities of a person’s character (i.e.,
a disposition). Similarly, in Old French talent was seen as will or desire. Although Hoad
(1996) considers this latter definition of talent obsolete, this type of operationalization
highlights the behavioral aspect of talent, which is becoming increasingly important
again in today’s business environment—as we will discuss in more detail later.
In contrast, in the Late Middle Ages (i.e., the fifteenth and sixteenth century), talent
came to mean a person’s mental ability or particular abilities, divinely entrusted to them
for their personal use and improvement (Hoad, 1996; Knowles, 2005). This meaning of
talent was strongly influenced by Christian interpretations of the Parable of the Talents,
which did not only stress the innate nature of talent, but also the fact that it is a person’s
duty to use and improve the talents gifted to them by God. As Michaels et al. (2001)
assert, “talent is a gift that must be cultivated, not left to languish” (p. xiii). Since only
few people were believed to be divinely entrusted with specific talents, the Parable, as
well, contributed to exclusive interpretations of the term talent. In this interpretation lies
the origin of talent being conceptualized as an inborn gift or natural aptitude (e.g.,
Gagné, 2000). A similar view of talent was held throughout the seventeenth century—
25
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
i.e., talent as inborn aptitudes and skills possessed by special people—but without
referring to divinity (Knowles, 2005).
By the nineteenth century, according to Tansley (2011), talent “was viewed as
embodied in the talented—hence, a person of talent and ability” (p. 267). Here, we
encounter for the first time a ‘subject’ approach to talent (i.e., talent as people), rather
than an ‘object’ approach, which conceptualizes talent as characteristics of people. Over
the course of the twentieth century some new terms arose. For instance, since the 1930s,
‘talent scout’ (or spotter) is used to designate a person searching for new talent
(Cresswell, 2009). The emergence of this term might explain why up until today many
people connect talent to sports or music. Another use of the term talent can be situated
in the 1940s among British servicemen, who quite commonly used the term ‘local
talent’ to refer to the good-looking people of a certain area (Cresswell, 2009). In
modern British English, talent is still used (be it informally) to refer to people regarded
as sexually attractive. One might say that, even in this form, talent refers to the
segmentation of the population in ‘haves’ and have-nots’.
When looking up ‘talent’ in Contemporary English Dictionaries we see that in this day
and age ‘object’ and ‘subject’ approaches to the conceptualization of talent coincide
(see Table 2), which possibly contributes to the confusion about what talent is, exactly.
In English, as well as in other European languages, talent is typically first described as
an innate ability that manifests in a particular field (Tansley, 2011). It is commonly
understood as above-average ability for a specific function or range or functions. Rather
than corresponding to ‘normal’ ability, talent is considered a special ability that makes
the people who possess, develop, and use it rise out above the rest of their age peers in
26
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
the specific area of their talent (Gagné, 2000). Consequently, talent is often equated to
excellent performance in a given performance domain.
Table 1.2
Definitions of talent in contemporary English dictionaries
Dictionary
First meaning
Second meaning
Stevenson (2010); Stevenson
Natural aptitude or skill
People possessing talent [natural
& Lindberg (2010)
Adrian-Vallance et al. (2009)
Barber (2004)
aptitude or skill]
A natural ability to do something
A person or people with a natural
well
ability or skill
Special aptitude or faculty
A person possessing exceptional
skill or ability; people of talent or
ability collectively
Deverson & Kennedy (2005)
Special aptitude or faculty; high
A person or persons of talent
mental ability
The second meaning of talent found in contemporary English Dictionaries refers to a
person or persons of talent (talent as subject)—i.e., people possessing special skills or
abilities. In fact, it is very common to see job advertisements in which talent refers to
potential applicants (e.g., “talent wanted”). Likewise, managers frequently refer to their
workforce as the talent of the organization, so as to stress the fact that people are the
organization’s most important assets (Ashton & Morton, 2005).
Taking into account the linguistic evolution of the term talent we infer that the original
meaning of the term talent refers to personal characteristics (talent as object). However,
the subject approach to talent—which is historically ‘newer’ than the object approach
(see also Tansley, 2011)—currently coexists with the object approach. In Figure 1 we
provide asummary of the etymology of the world talent as described earlier.
27
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
Figure 1.1
‘Talent’ meanings over time
1.3 Approaches to Talent in the World of Work
This present dual conceptualization of talent can also be found in HRM literature. In
what follows, we discuss the tensions between these two approaches to the
conceptualization of talent within the business realm.
1.3.1 Object Approach: Talent as Characteristics of People
Many peer-reviewed publications conceptualize talent as exceptional characteristics
demonstrated by individual employees. In fact, talent is usually defined as an
accumulation of related terms. For example, Michaels et al. (2001) in their book
considered a seminal piece in the TM field, consider talent to be “the sum of a person’s
abilities—his or her intrinsic gifts, skills, knowledge, experience, intelligence,
judgment, attitude, character and drive. It also includes his or her ability to learn and
grow.” (p. xii). Likewise, Tansley et al. (2006) define talent as “a complex amalgam of
employees’ skills, knowledge, cognitive ability and potential” (p.2), whereas Goffee
and Jones (2007) indirectly refers to talent as those ideas, knowledge and skills that give
28
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
those who possess them the potential to produce disproportionate value from the
resources their organizations makes available to them. Similarly, Cheese et al. (2008)
consider talent as “the total of all the experience, knowledge, skills, and behaviours that
a person has and brings to work” (p. 46). It is worth recalling that some authors
(Buckingham & Coffman, 2005; Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001) emphasized the
importance of differentiating between skills, knowledge and talents when describing
human behavior since could lead managers astray. According to them, skills can be seen
as the how-to’s of a job, i.e. specific techniques or methods with a programmed
sequence of steps that can be transferred from one person to another; whilst, knowledge
(factual or experiential) should refer to what one is aware of. Finally, Buckingham and
Vosburgh (2001) argue that talent should refer to “a person’s recurring pattern of
thought, feeling or behavior that can be productively applied” (p. 21). In Table 3, we
provide an overview of the different terms commonly associated with the notion of
‘talent-as-object’ in the academic literature.
Within the object approach to talent, we further distinguish between approaches that
conceptualize talent as natural ability; approaches operationalizing talent as the mastery
of systematically developed skills; approaches that associate talent with commitment
and motivation; and approaches that stress the importance of fit between an individual’s
talent and the context within which he or she works (i.e., in terms of organization and/or
position).
29
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
Table 1.3
Terms commonly associated with ‘talent-as-object’ in the literature
Associated terms
Sources
Ability
Gagné (2000); Hinrichs (1966); Michaels et al. (2001); Silzer & Dowell
(2010); Tansley et al. (2006); Williams (2000)
Capacity
Jericó (2001)
Capability
Stahl et al. (2007)
Commitment
Ulrich (2007)
Competence/competency
Bethke-Langenegger (2012); González-Cruz et al. (2009); Silzer & Dowell
(2010); Ulrich (2007); Williams (2000)
Contribution
Ulrich (2007)
Experience
Cheese, Thomas, & Craig (2008)
Knowledge
Bethke-Langenegger (2012); Cheese, Thomas, & Craig (2008); Michaels et
al. (2001); Tansley et al. (2006)
Performance
Stahl et al. (2007); Tansley et al. (2007)
Potential
Tansley et al. (2006); Tansley et al. (2007); Williams (2000)
Patterns of thought, feeling or behavior Buckingham & Vosburgh (2001); Cheese, Thomas, & Craig (2008)
Skills
Cheese, Thomas, & Craig (2008); Gagné (2000); Hinrichs (1966); Michaels
et al. (2001); Silzer & Dowell (2010); Tansley et al. (2006)
1.3.1.1 Talent as natural ability
The nature-nurture debate is a longstanding one when it comes to individual differences,
and it is pertinent to discussions about talent as well. (For a more in-depth discussion of
the nature-nurture debate in talent management, see Meyers, van Woerkom, & Dries, in
press). Most HRM scholars and practitioners seem to believe that talent is innate, at
least to some extent. Hinrichs (1966), for instance, defines talent as a native ability:
“(…) a unique mix of innate intelligence or brain power, plus a certain degree of
creativity or the capacity to go beyond established stereotypes and provide innovative
solutions to problems in his everyday world, plus personal skills which make him
effective in his relationships with his peers, his superiors, and his subordinates” (p. 11).
Conceptualizing talent as a natural ability has important repercussions for how talent
can (and cannot) be managed. Buckingham and Vosburgh (2001), for instance, assert
that whilst skills and knowledge are relatively ‘easy’ to teach, talent pertains to
characteristics much more enduring and unique. Therefore, according to these authors,
30
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
talent is quasi-impossible to learn or teach. Similarly, Davies and Davies (2010)
conclude that, given its innate nature, talent cannot really be managed—and suggest that
organizations should focus on the enablement of talent instead. In spite of the important
implications of the nature-nurture debate in talent management, however, Silzer and
Dowell (2010) claim that the distinction between innate and malleable components of
talent is seldom made in HR practice—which tends to take a more pragmatic approach
to managing talent.
1.3.1.2Talent as mastery
In contrast to the natural ability approach are conceptualizations of talent that focus on
deliberate practice and learning from experience. Ericsson, Prietula, and Cokely (2007),
for instance, conclude from their research across a wide range of performance domains
(i.e., chess, medicine, auditing, programming, dance, and music) that talent—which
they operationalize as expert performance—is nearly always made, not born. According
to Pfeffer and Sutton (2006), in spite of all the myth, talent is always a function of
experience and effort. Although, clearly, not all people have the same amount of
ultimate potential, there seems to be some agreement in the literature on deliberate
practice (e.g., Ericsson, 2006) and learning from experience (e.g., Briscoe & Hall, 1999)
that at least 10,000 h of focused and deliberate practice are required for reaching
‘talented’ levels of performance.
The mastery approach to talent also implies a need for evidence. According to Ericsson
et al. (2007), talent should be “demonstrated by measurable, consistently superior
performance” (p. 117). In other words, mastery implicitly involves extraordinary
performance in the task in which the employee applies those abilities. De Haro (2010)
31
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
states that if no evidence for exceptional achievements is available, we are not talking
about talent but about giftedness. Talent, then, refers to the mastery of systematically
developed gifts (Gagné, 2000). Here, we detect an overlap with the literature on
competence (e.g., Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). In fact, recent definitions
incorporate the term competence commonly defined as the ability to do something well,
i.e. the ability required for effective performance (e.g. González-Cruz, MartínezFuentes, & Pardo-del-Val,2009; Ulrich, 2007; Ulrich & Smallwood, 2012). According
to Gagné (2000), the difference between competence and talent is that competence
corresponds to levels of mastery ranging from minimally acceptable to well above
average—i.e., below the threshold for ‘talented’ or ‘expert’ behavior, which he
operationalizes as belonging to the top 10% of performers in a certain domain. The need
for behavioral evidence for talent is also witnessed in HR practice. In their study of the
talent management programs of 13 organizations, Dries and Pepermans (2008) found
that most of them were unwilling to label employees as talented before they had two or
three years of organizational experience, because they wanted to observe how people
performed within the specific setting of the organization first. A possible issue with this
type of approach is that it defines talent by its outcomes, which can be seen as creating a
tautological problem (i.e., a conceptual loop; see Priem & Butler, 2001).
1.3.1.3 Talent as commitment
A third approach to talent focuses on commitment, operationalized both as commitment
to one’s work, and to one’s employing organization. In the former meaning, talent is
conceptualized as something intrinsic to a person that directs focus, attention, and
dedication (Pruis, 2011). Nieto, Hernández-Maestro, and Muñoz-Gallego (2011), for
instance, state that talent is determined mainly by perseverance in that it implies the
32
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
successful completion of projects that most others would abandon or never even start. In
addition, the talent construct is seen as being related to will, perseverance, motivation,
interest, and passion (e.g., Weiss & MacKay, 2009). In the second meaning, talent as
commitment refers to employees’ willingness to invest discretionary energy into their
organization’s success—thus aligning personal with organizational goals (e.g., Ulrich,
2007). As Jericó (2001) posits, commitment implies not only giving one’s best to the
organization, but also functions as a barrier to leaving the organization (i.e., as a
negative predictor of turnover).
The conceptualization of talent as commitment is to be seen as a complementary, rather
than a supplementary approach to talent (i.e., in addition to the natural ability and/or
mastery approach). In our review, there were no publications stating that talent equals
commitment. Rather, different elements of talent are seen as multiplicative—e.g.,
“talent = competence u commitment u contribution”—such that high scores on one
element (e.g., commitment) cannot compensate for low scores on another (e.g.,
competence) (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2012).
1.3.1.4 Talent as fit
A final ‘object’ approach to talent refers to the fit between an individual’s talent and the
context within which he or she works—i.e., the right place, the right position, and/or the
right time. The fit approach is essential to the discussion of talent management as it
emphasizes the importance of context, implying that the meaning of talent is relative
rather than absolute, and subjective rather than objective (González-Cruz et al., 2009;
Jericó, 2001). It is said that in a given organizational setting, talent should be defined
and operationalized in light of the organization’s culture, environment (i.e., industry,
33
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
sector, labor market), and type of work (Pfeffer, 2001). The organizational context is
critical since people can be expected to perform above or below their normal level
depending on their immediate environment, the leadership they receive, and the team
they work with (Iles, 2008). As Coulson-Thomas (2012) puts it, “individuals who shine
in one context may struggle in another” (p. 431). Research on the transferability of star
performance (e.g., Groysberg, McLean, & Nohria, 2006) has demonstrated that talent,
indeed, is not always transferable from one organizational context to another—in some
cases, performance might even ‘plummet’ when a so-called star performer changes
organizations.
Fit plays a prominent role in the AMO (Ability-Motivation-Opportunity) framework,
which posits that in addition to skills and motivation, employees also need opportunities
to perform (Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005). Therefore, talent is not just about the quality
of an individual’s skill set—it also depends on the quality of his or her job. In this
respect, some authors in the talent management literature stress the importance of
matching people to positions (e.g., Collings & Mellahi, 2009). The allocation of the
most talented employees to the positions of highest strategic value in the organization
(i.e., ‘A positions’) whilst placing good performers in support positions (i.e., ‘B
positions’) and eliminating bad performers is called the portfolio approach to workforce
management (Becker, Huselid, & Beatty, 2009). Approaches such as these, advocate the
identification of ‘pivotal positions’—i.e., positions of above-average impact on
organizational outcomes—rather than the identification of talented individuals in se
(e.g., Ashton & Morton, 2005; Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005a, 2005b). Or as Boudreau
and Ramstad (2004) put it, “Rather than asking, ‘who is our A talent?’ we should ask,
‘in which talent pools does A talent matter most?’” (p. 4).
34
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
1.3.2 Subject Approach: Talent as People
Within the subject approach, we find both inclusive (i.e., talent understood as all
employees of an organization), and exclusive approaches to talent (i.e., talent
understood as an elite subset of an organization’s population) (Iles, Preece et al., 2010).
1.3.2.1 Inclusive subject interpretation: Talent as all people.
The inclusive approach to talent-as-subject sees the term talent as including everyone in
the organization. According to this approach, every employee has his or her own
strengths and thus, can potentially create added value for the organization (Buckingham
& Vosburgh, 2001). In a study reported by Leigh (2009), almost half of the companies
interviewed defined talent this way. According to Peters (2006) there is no reason not to
consider each employee as talented. Similarly, O’Reilly and Pfeffer (2000) posit that
organizational success stems from “capturing the value of the entire workforce, not just
a few superstars” (p. 52). Despite being quite vague, the inclusive approach to talent is
commonly justified in the literature using the argument that in knowledge-based
economies companies cannot achieve profits (or succeed otherwise) without their
people (Tulgan, 2002). In today’s business environment, it is mostly employees—i.e.,
not technology, not factories, not capital—that are believed to create value for
organizations, in that they are now the main determinant of organizational performance
(Crain, 2009).
Especially in the services industry, the whole business model is defined by and around
the people employed—and thus, defining talent as the entire workforce is not such a far
stretch. In companies such as luxury hotels, for instance, frontline and behind-thescenes employees play an equally important role in delivering the high-quality service
35
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
expected of this type of company (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005b). Acknowledging the
importance of context, Silzer and Dowell (2010) state that, “in some cases, talent might
refer to the entire employee population” (p. 14).
An inclusive definition of talent is typically found in strength-based approaches to talent
management—i.e., “the art of recognizing where each employee's areas of natural talent
lie, and figuring out how to help each employee develop the job-specific skills and
knowledge to turn those talents into real performance”—rather than in gap-based
approaches focused on the remediation of ‘development needs’ (i.e., weaknesses)
(Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001, p. 22). Inclusive, strength-based approaches to talent
are believed to benefit from what is called the ‘Mark Effect’—i.e., by treating everyone
in the organization as equals, a more pleasant, collegial, and motivating work climate is
created (Bothner, Podolny, & Smith, 2011). An inclusive approach guarantees an
egalitarian distribution of resources across all employees in an organization rather than
a focus on a small subset of elite performers, this way avoiding a drop in the morale of
loyal employees who are not considered ‘superstars’ (Groysberg, Nanda, & Nohria,
2004). Yost and Chang (2009), for instance, argue that organizations should try to help
all of their employees fulfill their fullest potential since focusing investments (in terms
of time, money, and energy) on only a few people, within a limited set of roles is a risky
strategy looking at projected labor market scarcities.
The main criticism of the inclusive subject approach to talent is that it makes
differentiation between talent management and strategic human resource management
(SHRM) more difficult. If talent refers to the whole of the workforce, managing talent
‘simply’ implies proper workforce management and development of all the
36
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
organization’s people, which is not particularly helpful in specifying how TM is
different from SHRM (Garrow & Hirsh, 2008). In fact, according to this approach, TM
is a collection of typical HR processes such as recruitment, selection, development,
training, performance appraisal, and retention (Iles, Chuai et al., 2010; Silzer & Dowell,
2010)—although some authors might add that TM refers to doing them faster and/or
better (Lewis & Heckman, 2006). Lin (2006) argues that adopting an inclusive approach
to TM might create unnecessarily high costs in terms of HR investments. In that sense,
the assumption of the strength-based approach creating a win-win for both individuals
and organizations may be flawed, in that gap-based and exclusive approaches to talent
management are often the more cost-effective and efficient solution (Collings &
Mellahi, 2009).
1.3.2.2 Exclusive subject interpretation: Talent as some people.
In stark contrast to the inclusive approach to talent,the exclusive approach is based on
the notion of segmentation of the workforce, and understands talent as an elite subset of
the organization’s population—i.e. “(…) those individuals who can make a difference to
organizational performance, either through their immediate contribution or in the
longer-term by demonstrating the highest levels of potential” (Tansley et al., 2007, p.
8).
Talent as high performers: More often than not, the subject approach to talent equates
the term talent to high performers—i.e., “the best of class” (Smart, 2005). Stahl et al.
(2007), for instance, define talent as a select group of employees who rank at the top in
terms of capability and performance; Silzer and Dowell (2010) as a group of employees
within an organization who are exceptional in terms of skills and abilities either in a
37
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
specific technical area, a specific competency, or a more general area; and Williams
(2000) as those people who demonstrate exceptional ability and achievement in an array
of activities and situations, or within a specialized field of expertise, on a regular basis.
The threshold for being considered an ‘exceptional’ performer, across studies, seems to
lie at belonging to the top 10 percent of age peers in one’s specific area of expertise
(e.g., Gagné, 2000; Ulrich & Smallwood, 2012). As mentioned earlier (in the discussion
of A and B positions in the section on ‘Talent as fit’), this category of employees is
commonly referred to as ‘A players’ (e.g., Becker et al., 2009).
According to Smart (2005), high performers are the single most important driver of
organizational performance, since they “contribute more, innovate more, work smarter,
earn more trust, display more resourcefulness, take more initiative, develop better
business strategies, articulate their vision more passionately, implement change more
effectively, deliver higher-quality work, demonstrate greater teamwork, and find ways
to get the job done in less time and at less cost” (pp. 5-6). Advocates of topgrading—
i.e., the practice of trying to fill 75% (and preferably 90%) of all positions in the
organization with high performers—argue that the best way to outperform competitors
is to hire top performers at all levels in the organization (e.g., Michaels et al., 2001).
Talent as high potentials: Some authors operationalize talent as a select group of
employees who demonstrate high levels of potential. According to Silzer and Church
(2009), potential can be defined as “the modifiability of unobservable structures that
have not as yet become actual, or exist in possibility, capable of development in
actuality (…) the possibility that individuals can become something more than what
they currently are (…) it implies further growth and development to reach some desired
38
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
end state (…) In work environments, potential is typically used to suggest that an
individual has the qualities (e.g., characteristics, motivation, skills, abilities, and
experiences) to effectively perform and contribute in broader or different roles in the
organization at some point in the future” (p. 379). High potential employees, then, are
those employees believed to have the potential to advance at a faster pace than their
peers, whilst demonstrating different needs, motivations, and behaviors than ‘regular’
employees (Pepermans, Vloeberghs, & Perkisas, 2003). In practice, we find that the
high potential label is often given based on past performance data, which might be seen
as a form of Halo bias—i.e., the invalid generalization of certain personal characteristics
to other characteristics that might not be as highly correlated as they appear at first
glance (e.g., Martin & Schmidt, 2010).
Either way, both the high performer and the high potential approach to talent imply
exclusiveness. No matter how appealing the inclusive approach to TM may sound—i.e.,
“TM should be aimed at developing all employees to the best of their abilities”
(Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001)—more arguments are found in the literature in favor
of the exclusive approach (Iles, Chuai et al., 2010). In fact, the exclusive approach is
not only defended widely in the literature; it is also the most prevalent approach to
talent management found in HR practice (Ready, Conger, & Hill, 2010). Specifically,
the exclusive approach to TM is said to benefit from what is called the ‘Matthew
Effect’—i.e., the effect whereby the allocation of more resources to the better
performers in the organization leads to higher return on investment, since more
resources are allocated there where more returns can be expected (i.e., in improving the
performance of the best-performing employees even further; Bothner et al., 2011).
According to Netessine and Yakubovich (2012), as long as employees’ performances
39
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
can be accurately evaluated and ranked, the fact that better workers get better
assignments and more privileges may in fact encourage low performers to quit or to do
better, leading to a higher-performing workforce overall. Similarly, Höglund (2012)
argues that differential treatment of employees based on their differential talents can
create a ‘continuous tournament’ in which employees are motivated to develop and
apply the skills and qualities the organization requires.
The allocation of resources according to merit, sometimes referred to as ‘winner-takeall’, works particularly well in industries populated by low-wage workers, such as
restaurants, retail companies, and call centers. An individual employee’s contribution to
organizational performance is not necessarily related to his or her position in the
hierarchy, however. For instance, a lower-level sales representative can be of pivotal
importance to the profits of a retail company (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005b).
The literature identifies a number of critiques on the exclusive approach, as well. First
of all, evaluations of performance and potential are usually not based on objective
indicators alone, but rather reflect judgments made by top and line management
(Pepermans et al., 2003). Hence, the process of identifying talented employees is
inherently subjective, and thus susceptible to bias (Silzer & Church, 2010; Walker &
LaRocco, 2002). Second, the assumption that talented employees are inherently
different from less talented employees might be flawed in that it fails to take into
account the fact that ‘A players’ might look like ‘B players’ under certain conditions
and vice versa (Netessine & Yakubovich, 2012; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). Third, the
assumption that past performance predicts future performance, which often underlies
the identification of talented employees, is a controversial point (Martin & Schmidt,
40
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
2010). In addition, the causal relationship between performance levels before and after
being identified as a talent is distorted by the fact that identification, in itself, leads to
increased support for performance improvement (Walker & LaRocco, 2002). Fourth,
identifying an elite subset of the organization as talents can lead to self-fulfilling
prophecies such as the Pygmalion effect—i.e., the effect whereby expectations of
performance (high or low) determine actual performance (in a positive or negative way)
in that they impact on motivation and self-esteem (e.g., McNatt, 2000). This raises
questions as to the validity and utility of identifying only a small number of employees
as talented since Pygmalion effects have the potential to be beneficial to all
employees—also mediocre performers (Eden, 1992). Fifth, labeling a small group of
employees as talented has also been demonstrated to lead to negative effects as it can
lead to increased sensitivity to feedback and fear of failure among those identified as
‘exceptionally promising’ (e.g., Kotlyar & Karakowsky, 2012). And sixth, allocating a
large proportion of the organization’s resources to a small number of ‘superstars’ might
damage organizational morale, embittering loyal employees and causing resentment
among peers (DeLong & Vijayaraghavan, 2003). It is said that an overemphasis on
individual
performance
discourages
personal
development
organization-wide,
undermines teamwork as a result of the zero-sum reward practices (i.e., practices
whereby only some team members are rewarded, causing an overall negative or neutral
effect whereby the positive effects of some receiving a reward do not outweigh the
negative effects of most not receiving a reward), and runs the risk of creating an
atmosphere of destructive internal competition that retards learning and the spread of
best practices across the organization (Pfeffer, 2001; Walker & LaRocco, 2002).
41
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
1.4 Discussion
Based on our in-depth historical review of the literature on talent management, we can
only conclude that there is a fundamental lack of consensus as to the meaning of ‘talent’
in the world of work. However, a clear framework for the conceptualization of talent
within the business realm can be established (see Figure 2.2).
Figure1. 2
Framework for the conceptualization of talent within the world of work
As we have discussed throughout this chapter, within the world of work talent is
conceptualized in two broad ways—i.e., talent as object versus talent as subject—which
can, in turn, be further subdivided. Within the object approach, talent is conceptualized
as exceptional abilities and attitudes demonstrated by an individual. It should be noted
that throughout the years talent definitions within this approach have been simplified at
the same time that behavioral components have been added. Although, outstanding
results are the common denominator within this approach, first definitions were a mere
42
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
accumulation of intangible terms such as gifts, knowledge, skills, and abilities.
However, recent definitions (cf. González-Cruz et al., 2009; Ulrich, 2007; Ulrich &
Smallwood, 2012) refer to competence, since it can be argued that most of the terms
associated with talent can be subsumed under this concept(see Table 2.3). According to
Nordhaug and Gronhaug (1994) competencies as individual characteristics are labeled
as SKAs (Skills, Knowledge and ability). Talent as competence, then, could replace
talent as the sum of individual’s skills, abilities and knowledge. Moreover, it is
interesting to note that the suitability for describing talent in terms of competencies can
be endorsed by the fact that the foremost exponents of research on competencies at
work (Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer & Spencer, 1993) usually describe competence as an
underlying characteristic of a person with an effective and/or superior performance in a
job or situation. Thus, what is the added value of the talent concept above and beyond
existing concepts that have a much longer academic history and are more established
(e.g. competence)? Even though some authors (Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer & Spencer,
1993) try to differentiate levels of performance among competences (threshold
competencies were basic requirements to carry out the job, whereas performance or
differentiate competencies imply above average performance), talent is supposed to lead
to a superior level of performance than a competence. According to Gagné (2004),
“competence corresponds to levels of mastery ranging from minimally acceptable to
well above average, yet below the defined threshold for ‘talented’ or ‘expert’ behavior”
(Gagné, 2004). Probably, because as we have seen before, talent also implies
commitment to do the job, i.e. willingness to work hard and give a discretionary effort
in what is doing. According to our literature review, talent cannot only be defined in
terms of competence but also by some behavioral (e.g. commitment, motivation) and
contingency (e.g. opportunity, action) components. Hence, it is important to note that
43
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
the different sub-approaches of the object approach identified in the present review (i.e.,
talent as natural ability, talent as mastery, talent as commitment, and talent as fit) are to
be seen as complementary, rather than supplementary. Commitment and fit,
specifically—no matter how high—will never be used as sole indicators of talent, but
always as complimentary to measures of ability (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2012).
Within the subject approach talent, talent is understood as people of an organization (all
the people or some of them). It is interesting to note that this approach to talent can
perfectly complement the object one. Simply put, applying the object approach to (all
or just some) people in the organization. Consequently, both approaches can coexist in
the same organization, as it really happens at present in some cases. How this can be
implemented? If the organization has an inclusive interpretation of talent as subject, by
using a universalistic perspective to competency management, HR managers or TM
managers just only need to adapt preexisting competency codebooks and standard
profiles to those at their organization. However, the effectiveness of this approach has
often been questioned due to several and practical limitations (cf. Capaldo, Iandoli &
Zollo, 2006). A situationalist perspective to competency management in which
“competencies are deeply influenced by organizational culture, social interaction and
the unique way people make sense of their jobs within organizations” (Capaldo et al.,
2006, p. 430) might be a good option in order to take into consideration the
contingencies. Nevertheless, it would generate also problems to differentiate TM from
Competency Models due to its inclusive orientation. In addition, if the organization has
an exclusive interpretation of talent as subject, and as mentioned before, TM managers
will only focus on organizational élites that are high performers and/or high potentials.
Nevertheless, as seen before, TM within this approach focuses on structural
44
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
differentiation (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Becker et al., 2009), and not all strategic jobs
of an organization are going to be leadership ones. So, we argue that the principal
differentiation between TM and Succession Planning is that TM focuses on assuring the
adequate flow of employees in those strategic jobs. This will reinforce the statement
that TM is not egalitarian by nature, since it is only interested in a group of employees
where additional investments generate high additional returns.
Finally, we can also conclude that the literature on talent management, although diverse
in terms of underlying concepts, is rather normative. In fact, the assumptions underlying
the different approaches to talent discussed in this chapter are often ‘sold’ as objective
facts, even though little empirical evidence of their accuracy has been provided by
academics and/or HR practitioners to date.
1.5 Implications for HR practice
As discussed earlier, organizations will not commonly distinguish between innate and
acquired elements of talent, but rather, focus on proven achievements in their
assessments of talent (Silzer & Dowell, 2010). Pragmatists might even argue that the
nature-nurture debate comes down to semantics (Tansley, 2011). Implicit beliefs held
by organizational decision makers about the degree to which individual characteristics
are fixed as opposed to malleable, have repeatedly been demonstrated to have a very
strong impact on their assessments of talent, however (Heslin, Latham, & Vandewalle,
2005). Therefore, it seems pivotal for organizations to explicitly take a position as to the
extent to which they want to focus their talent management efforts on talent
45
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
identification (i.e., ‘buying’ talent), versus talent development (i.e., ‘building’ talent)
(see also Meyers et al., in press).
Although the object approach to talent exhibits better fit with the etymological meaning
of talent (Tansley, 2011), the subject approach (i.e., talent as people) seems to be much
more prevalent in organizational practice (Iles, Preece et al., 2010). More specifically, a
talent management strategy grounded in workforce segmentation (Becker et al., 2009),
based on the identification of select pools of high performers and/or high potentials,
seems to be the most common approach (Dries & Pepermans, 2008). Although many
advocates can be found for a more inclusive, strength-based approach to talent
management, as well (e.g., Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001), it remains unclear to what
extent an inclusive approach to talent makes sense, considering that the term ‘talent’,
inherently—considering its etymology—implies above-average ability or performance
(e.g. Gagné, 2000). As discussed in our review, the inclusive and the exclusive subject
approach to talent each both have their own merits and drawbacks. Which approach is
‘better’ is likely to be determined by an organization’s mission and culture (Garrow &
Hirsch, 2008)—see the examples of the luxury hotel industry versus the call center
industry, discussed earlier in this chapter.
Importantly, we propose that the subject and the object approach to talent can inform
each other in that the object approach specifies which personal characteristics to look
for in identifications of talent, whereas the subject approach provokes important
discussions about cut-offs and norms (e.g., Gagné, 2000; Ulrich & Smallwood, 2012).
46
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
1.6 Further avenues for research
One of the aims of the current chapter was to offer specific suggestions for what we see
as the most pressing topics for future research on the topic of talent in the context of the
workplace. Below, we discuss different avenues for future research aimed at developing
the talent—and consequently, the talent management—construct further.
What the field needs first and foremost is more theory (Collings & Mellahi, 2009;
Lewis & Heckman, 2006), both in the way of in-depth literature reviews (that might
borrow from a range of disciplines—see also Dries, in press) and conceptual
development. More theory development is a necessity if we ever want to come to a
nomological network for talent, and demonstrate ‘once and for all’ that talent is a
construct in its own right that adds value over related constructs such as strengths (e.g.,
Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001), gifts (e.g., Gagné, 2000), ability (e.g., Michaels et al.,
2001), and competence (e.g., Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). This, in turn,
will help the field pinpoint the specific added value of talent management above and
beyond more established concepts such as SHRM, succession planning, and workforce
differentiation (Chuai et al., 2008). Findings from the literature might be complemented
with findings from critical discourse analysis of interview data or HR practitioner
publications (Huang & Tansley, 2012), and by in-depth case studies (Preece et al.,
2011). In addition to a nomological network, we need process models describing the
antecedents and outcomes of talent, both in the way of the ‘actual’ emergence of talent
and the ‘perception’ of talent by relevant others in the work setting (Silzer & Church,
2009). Consequently, more research is needed on how talent is identified.
47
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
A second avenue for further research is to examine differences in the conceptualization
and implementation of talent management. Differences might be examined at the
organizational, departmental, sectoral, country, and/or cultural level, using multilevel
designs. In doing so, researchers would respond to calls for more evidence of how talent
management is implemented across different contexts (see also Thunnissen, Boselie,
and Fruytier, in press), and which approaches are more prevalent. Interviews with HR
managers and CEOs complemented by organizational-level surveys across a range of
contexts might help unveil the organizational rationale underlying specific talent
management decisions (Dries & Pepermans, 2008; Iles, Chuai et al., 2010). In addition,
comparative research designs such as these will allow for a critical examination of the
TM frameworks dominating the existing literature, which is very US-/UK-centric
(Tansley, 2011).
Third, future research might aim to contribute to the discussion about the link between
talent management and specific employee- and organizational-level outcomes (see also
Gelens, Dries, Hofmans, & Pepermans, in press). Although there is a strong level of
conviction in the literature that strategic talent management decisions predict important
outcomes such as organizational performance, productivity, profits, and market position
(e.g., Ashton & Morton, 2005), empirical evidence of such relationships is lacking
(Boudreau & Ramstad, 2004, 2005a, 2005b). Multilevel research designs, possibly
combined with pre-and post-intervention measurement (e.g., in organizations
implementing a change in their approach to talent) are well suited to tackle this
particular research gap, as are comparative case studies.
48
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
A fourth and final topic for further research is the reliability and validity of various
approaches to the identification of talent in organizational settings (Silzer & Church,
2009). Although HR practitioners look to the academic world for guidelines as to how
to validly assess talent—especially seeking evidence for the long-term predictive
validity of different types of measures—hardly any empirical evidence can be found.
The literature on the identification of gifted children (e.g., Gagné, 2000), as well as the
literature on personnel selection (e.g., Cappelli, 2009), offer interesting points of
departure, however. In order to advance talent management as an academic field of
research, it seems imperative to explore what we can learn from other disciplines first,
before we attempt to ‘reinvent the wheel’ (e.g., Höglund, 2012).
49
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
References
Adrian-Vallance, E., Cleveland, K., Dignen, S., Handorf, S., Hollingworth, L.,
Manning, E., Murphy, M., Stark, M., & Wedgeworth, L. (2009). Longman
Dictionary of Contemporary English(5th ed.) Harlow: Pearson Education
Limited.
Ashton, C., & Morton, L. (2005). Managing talent for competitive advantage. Strategic
HR Review, 4(5), 28-31.
Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition,
ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and
learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165-182.
Barber, K. (2004). The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resource management: where
do we go from here? Journal of Management, 32(6), 898-925.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Beatty, R. W. (2009). The differentiated workforce:
Transforming talent into strategic impact. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Beechler, S., & Woodward, I. C. (2009). The global war for talent. Journal of
International Management, 15(3), 273-285.
Bethke-Langenegger, P. (2012). The differentiated workforce: Effects of categorization
in talent management on workforce level. Unpublished working paper, No. 18,
Department of Business Administration, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in research
on human resource management and performance. Human Resource
Management Journal, 15(3), 67-94.
50
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Bothner, M. S., Podolny, J. M., & Smith, E. B. (2011). Organizing contest for status:
the Matthew Effect vs. the Mark Effect. Management Science, 57(3), 439-457.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2004). “Talentship”: a decision science for HR.
Why HR measurement must focus on informing better talent decisions.
Strategic HR Review, 3(2), 28-31.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005a). Talentship, talent segmentation, and
sustainability: a new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy
definition. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 129-136.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005b). Where’s your pivotal talent? Harvard
Business Review, 83(4), 23-24.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance.
New York: Wiley.
Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (1999). Grooming and picking leaders using competency
frameworks: Do they work? An alternative approach and new guidelines for
practice. Organizational Dynamics, 28(2), 37-52.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (2005). First, break all the rules: What the world’s
greatest managers do differently. London: Pocket Books (Original work of The
Gallup Organization, 1999).
Buckingham, M., & Vosburgh, R. M. (2001). The 21st century human resources
function: It’s the talent, stupid!. Human Resource Planning, 24(4), 17-23.
Capaldo, G., Iandoli, L. &Zollo, G. (2006). A situationalist perspective to competency
management. Human Resource Management, 45(3), 429-448.
Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent on demand: Managing talent in an age of uncertainty.
Boston: Harvard Business Press.
51
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
Cappelli, P. (2009). What’s old is new again: Managerial “talent” in an historical
context. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 28, 179218.
Cheese, P., Thomas, R.T. & Craig, E. (2008). The talent powered organization:
Strategies for globalization, talent management and high performance. London:
Kogan Page.
Chuai, X., Preece, D. & Iles, P. (2008). Is talent management just “old wine in new
bottles”?: The case of multinational companies in Beijing. Management
Research News, 31(12), 901-911.
Collings, D. G. & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and
research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304-313.
Coulson-Thomas, C. (2012). Talent Management and building high performance
organisations. Industrial and Commercial Training, 44(7), 429-438.
Crain, D. W. (2009). Only the right people are strategic assets of the firm. Strategy &
Leadership, 37(6), 33-38.
Cresswell, J. (Ed.). (2009). The Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins (2nd ed.) Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Darwill, T. (2008). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaelogy (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Davies, B. & Davies, B. J. (2010). Talent management in academies. International
Journal of Educational Management, 24(5), 418-426.
De Haro, J. M. (2010). Gestión del talento, pero ¿de qué talento? Diez preguntas para
delimitar el concepto de talento en las organizaciones [Talent management, but
of what talent? Ten questions to delimitate the talent concept in organizations].
Capital Humano, 242, 72-78.
52
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
DeLong, T. J., & Vijayaraghavan, V. (2003). Let’s hear it for B players, Harvard
Business Review, 81(6), 96-102.
Deverson, T., & Kennedy, G. (Eds.). (2005). The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dries, N. (in press). The psychology of talent management: A review and research
agenda [Special Issue]. Human Resource Management Review.
Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2008). Real high-potential careers: An empirical study into
the perspectives of organizations and high potentials, Personnel Review, 37(1),
85-108.
Eden, D. (1992). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other selffulfilling prophecies in organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 3(4), 271-305.
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the
development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, R.
R. Hoffman, & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise
and expert performance, (pp. 685-705). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert.
Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 115-121.
Gagné, F. (2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development
through DMGT-Based analysis. In K. A. Heller et al. (Eds.), International
handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.),Oxford: Elsevier.
Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental
theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119 - 147.
Garrow, V., & Hirsh, W. (2008). Talent management: Issues of Focus and Fit. Public
Personnel Management, 37(4), 389-402.
53
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
Gelens, J., Dries, N., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (in press). The role of perceived
organizational justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: A
research agenda [Special Issue]. Human Resource Management Review.
González-Cruz, T., Martínez-Fuentes, C., & Pardo-del-Val, M. (2009). La gestión del
talento en la empresa industrial española [Talent management in Spanish
industry]. Economía Industrial, 374, 21-35.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2007). Leading clever people. Harvard Business Review,
85(5), 72-79.
Groysberg, B., McLean, A. N., & Nohria, N. (2006). Are leaders portable? Harvard
Business Review, 84(5), 92-100.
Groysberg, B., Nanda, A., & Nohria, N. (2004). The risky business of hiring stars.
Harvard Business Review, 82(5), 92-100.
Heslin, P. A., Latham, G. P., & Vandewalle, D. (2005). The effect of implicit person
theory on performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 842-856.
Hinrichs, J. R. (1966). High-Talent personnel: Managing a critical resource. Vermont:
American Management Association.
Hoad, T. F. (Ed.). (1996). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Höglund, M. (2012). Quid pro quo? Examining talent management through the lens of
psychological contracts. Personnel Review, 41(2), 126-142.
Honey, P. (2004, December). What is talent? Training Journal, 11.
Howatson, M. C. (Ed.). (2011). The Concise Oxford Companion to Classical Literature
(3th ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Huang, J., & Tansley, C. (2012). Sneaking through the minefield of talent management:
The notion of rhetorical obfuscation. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 23(17), 3673-3691.
Iles, P. (2008). Talent balancing: staffing your company for long-term success. Human
Resource Development International, 11(2), 215-218.
Iles, P., Chuai, X., & Preece, D. (2010). Talent Management and HRM in Multinational
companies in Beijing: Definitions, differences and drivers. Journal of World
Business, 45(2), 179-189.
Iles, P., Preece, D., & Chuai, X. (2010). Talent management as a management fashion
in HRD: towards a research agenda. Human Resource Development
International,13(2), 125-145.
Jericó, P. (2001). Gestión del talento: Enfoque conceptual y empírico[Talent
management: A conceptual and empirical approach].
Boletín de Estudios
Económicos, LVI(174), 423-441.
Knowles, E. (Ed.) (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (2nd ed.)
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kotlyar, I., & Karakowsky, L. (2012, August) Rising stars and falling commitment:
Self-perceived status and responses to performance feedback. Paper presented
at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Boston.
Lawler III, E. E. (2008). Talent: Making people your competitive advantage. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leigh, A. (2009, July). Research topic: Talent Management. People Management, 33.
Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent Management: A critical review. Human
Resource Management Review,16(2), 139-154.
55
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
Lin, W. Z. (2006, May). The new key word ‘talent management’ in retaining the top
employees. Human Capital Magazine.
Martin, J., & Schmidt, C. (2010). How to keep your top talent. Harvard Business
Review, 88(5), 54-61.
McNatt, D. B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: A metaanalysis of the result. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 314-322.
Meyers, M. C., van Woerkom, M., & Dries, N. (in press). Talent: Innate or acquired?
Theoretical considerations and their implications for talent management.
Human Resource Management Review.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Netessine, S., & Yakubovich, V. (2012). The Darwinian workplace. Harvard Business
Review, 90(5), 25-28.
Nieto, J., Hernández-Maestro, R. M., & Muñoz-Gallego, A. (2011). The influence of
entrepreneurial and website type on business performance by rural tourism
establishments in Spain. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13, 17-31.
Nordhaug, O. & Gronhaug, K. (1994). Competence as resources. The International
Journal of Human Resources Management, 5(1), 89-106.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Pfeffer, J. (2000). Cisco Systems: Acquiring and retaining talent in
hypercompetitive markets. Human Resource Planning, 23(3), 38-52.
Pepermans, R., Vloeberghs, D., & Perkisas, B. (2003). High potential identification
policies: an empirical study among Belgian companies. Journal of Management
Development, 22(8), 660-678.
Peters, T. (2006). Leaders as talent fanatics. Leadership Excellence,23(11), 12-13.
56
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Pfeffer, J. (2001). Fighting the war for talent is hazardous to your organization’s health.
Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 248-259.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total
nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Preece, D., Iles, P., & Chuai, X. (2011). Talent management and management fashion in
Chinese enterprises: exploring case studies in Beijing. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(16), 3413-3428.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-Based View a useful perspective for
strategic management research?. Academy of Management Review,26(1), 22-40.
Pruis, E. (2011). The five key principles for talent development. Industrial and
Commercial Training,43(4), 206-216.
Ready, D. A., Conger, J. A., & Hill, L. A. (2010). Are you a high-potential? Harvard
Business Review, 88(6), 78-84.
Reilly, P. (2008). Identifying the right course for talent management. Public Personnel
Management, 37(4), 381-388.
Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2009). The pearls and perils of identifying potential.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 377-412.
Silzer, R., & Dowell, B. E. (Eds.) (2010). Strategy-Driven Talent Management: A
leadership imperative. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Smart, B. D. (2005). Topgrading: How leading companies win by hiring, coaching, and
keeping the best people. (Rev. ed). New York: Portfolio (Penguin Group).
Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
57
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
Stahl, G. K., Björkman, I., Farndale, E., Morris, S. S., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P., Trevor, J.,
& Wright, P. M. (2007). Global talent management: How leading
multinationals build and sustain their talent pipeline. INSEAD Faculty and
Research Working Papers, 2007/24/OB.
Stevenson, A. (Ed.). (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English (3th ed.) Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stevenson, A., & Lindberg, C. A. (Ed.). (2010). New Oxford American Dictionary (3th
ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tansley, C. (2011). What do we mean by the term “talent” in talent management?.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 43(5), 266-274.
Tansley, C., Harris, L., Stewart, J., & Turner, P. (2006). Talent Management:
Understanding the dimensions. Change Agenda. London: Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development (CIPD).
Tansley, C., Turner, P., Carley, F., Harris, L., Sempik, A., Stewart, J., & Williams, H.
(2007). Talent: Strategy, management, measurement. London: Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).
Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P., & Fruytier, B. (in press). Talent management and the
relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach [Special Issue]. Human
Resource Management Review.
Tulgan, B. (2002). Winning the talent wars. New York: Norton.
Ulrich, D. (2007, October). The talent trifecta. Workforce Management, 86(15).
Ulrich, D. (2011). Integrated talent management. In K. Oakes, & P. Galagan (Eds.), The
Executive Guide to Integrated Talent Management (pp. 189-211). Alexandria,
Virginia: ASTD Press.
58
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2012, Winter). What is talent? Leader to leader, 63, 5561.
Walker, J. W., & LaRocco, J. M. (2002). Talent pools: The best and the rest. Human
Resource Planning, 25, 12-14.
Weiss, A., & Mackay, N. (2009). The talent advantage: How to attract and retain the
best and the brightest. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Williams, M. (2000). The war for talent: Getting the best from the best. London:
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).
Yost, P.R. & Chang, G. (2009): Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(4), 442-445.
59
Chapter 1. What is the Meaning of ‘Talent’ in the World of Work?
60
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Chapter 2.
How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary
review
61
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
62 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
“The only thing worse than being blind is having sight, but no vision.”
Helen Keller
[Cited in K. Larkan (2009).Winning the talent war: The 8 essentials, Singapore:
Marshall Cavendish International (Asia) Private Limited; p. 57]
An adaptation of this chapter has been submitted to the Journal of World Business. Full details in Appendix B.
63
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
64 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
How talent is identified? A multidisciplinary review of different components
2.1 Introduction
Over the course of the last decade, organizations seem to have become increasingly
convinced that the deliberate identification of talent and its subsequent management is crucial
for maximizing organizational performance and achieve sustained competitive advantage
(Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Lewis & Heckman, 2006). Interestingly, however, we still know
very little about how organizations identify talent (Wiblen, Dery & Grant, 2012). In fact, HR
practitioners report great difficulty defining what talent is, let alone measuring it accurately
for identification purposes (Tansley, 2011). Theoretical foundations for talent management
based on a clear conceptualization of talent—necessary for supporting HR practitioners in
designing and implementing talent identification practices in terms of methods and
measures—appear largely absent in the academic literature (Silzer & Church, 2010).
Although HRM scholars appear to be convinced that no adequate theoretical frameworks for
talent management are currently available, in fact a whole body of literature exists outside of
the HRM domain with the potential of offering interesting insights for talent management
since it deals with the conceptualization and measurement of talent. Accordingly, the present
chapter aims to contribute to the establishment of a stronger theoretical basis for talent
management by integrating insights fragmented across different disciplines outside of the
broader HRM domain. Three literature streams were identified as being of particular
relevance: the giftedness literature; vocational psychology; and positive psychology. Building
65
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
on insights from these different literature streams, we identify two components of talent, i.e.
an ability component and an affective component. We systematically discuss how each
component is defined and identified in terms of measures and methods.
Throughout our discussion, a comparison is drawn between talent on the one hand and
competence and potential on the other—constructs that are frequently misused as
interchangeable. In addition, we identify tensions between the different literature streams
discussed. This comparative approach provides us with the input needed to discuss
implications for designing theoretically sound talent identification practices in organizations.
We conclude with future research directions, shedding light on how talent management
scholars might further capitalize on the cross-fertilization between insights from different
disciplines, so as to gradually establish the theoretical foundations needed to transform talent
management into a legitimate field of study.
2.2Talent identification within HRM literature
From the late nineties onwards, the topic of talent management has aroused a great deal of
interest within the HRM literature, which is mainly concerned with strategic investments in
terms of talent identification, selection, development, planning and retention. However, as
mentioned in the previous chapter, this topic remains underdeveloped (Collings & Mellahi,
2009; Lewis & Heckman, 2006) mainly due to the multiplicity of views about what
constitutes talent within organizations (McDonnell, Lamare, Gunnigle & Lavelle, 2010;
Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries & González-Cruz, in press; Tansley, 2011). Accordingly, talent is
operationalized in many different ways. So, it is its identification. Wiblen et al. (2012) offer
three conceptual categories of talent management that lead to different ways of understanding
66 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
talent identification. The first assume a subject approach to talent (i.e. recognizes individuals
as talent) and involves its identification. So, basically, talent identification is based onlooking
for high performers or ‘stars’, i.e. their top 10-20% of performers. The second category views
talent as a set of particular skills and capabilities identified and evaluated by the organizations
as being critical for the organization success. Hence, talent identification includes the search
for not only specific individuals with outstanding levels of performance, but also cohorts of
employees who are seen to possess attributes and skills valuable for the organization and hard
to replace. This idea recalls the HR architecture modeldeveloped by Lepak and Snell (1999),
in which human capital (term sometimes used as synonym for talent)can be assessed in terms
of value and uniqueness. Value refers to the potential to contribute to an organization’s core
competences and advance its competitive position. Uniqueness refers to the extent to which
human capital is difficult to replace due to unique job or organization requirements and labor
market scarcities. Employees who possess human capital that is simultaneously high on value
and uniqueness are identified as the ‘talent’ of an organization (Lepak & Snell, 2002). Becker
and Huselid (2006) argue that the value of talented employees depends on the specific
positions they occupy, which is closely related to the third TM category proposed by Wiblen
et al. (2009) and that equates talent with particular functions or roles in the organization that
are critical for its success. So, TM involves the identification of resources, roles and
capabilities that are extremely important for the organization. Specifically, those positions for
which small increments in improvement in quality or quantity result in an above average
returns on strategic measures are seen as pivotal (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005). Boudreau and
Ramstad refer to those positions as “pivotal talent pools- where human capital makes the
biggest difference to strategic success” (p. 129). According to Wiblen, Grant and Dery (2010)
in order to identify such pivotal roles or functions organizations should undertake systematic
analysis of their business, which will be the critical foundation for a strategic talent
67
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
management system (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). As mentioned before, the systematic
identification and subsequent management of talent is seen as the principles that will allow
organizations to achieve improved performance and sustained competitive advantage
(Collings & Mellahi, 2009).A match between people and positions can be obtained by
adopting a portfolio approach to workforce management in which the most talented
employees (i.e., ‘A players’) are allocated to the positions highest in strategic value (i.e., ‘A
positions’), good performers (i.e., ‘B players’) are matched to support positions (i.e., ‘B
positions’), and bad performers (i.e., ‘C players’) and jobs that don’t add value are removed
from the organization (Becker, Huselid & Beatty, 2009, Huselid, Beatty & Becker, 2005).
In general, scholars adhering to the human capital approach to talent management believe that
the relative contribution of people or positions to their organizations legitimizes
disproportionate investment in certain employees or jobs (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Lepak &
Snell, 1999). In short, we are talking about exclusive driven approaches to talent
identification and management. This is reflected in the principle of workforce differentiation
that is fundamental to discussions held in the talent management literature. Workforce
differentiation refers to the investment of disproportionate resources where one expects
disproportionate returns, resulting in segmentation of the workforce on the basis of the
strategic contribution a specific job or a specific employee can produce (Huselid & Becker,
2011). To this end, employees are frequently differentiated based on their past and current
performance in terms of predefined competences seen as pivotal by their organizations (Silzer
& Church, 2010, 2009). Organizations focus mainly on competences associated with the
capacity to take on senior jobs, so as to detect the leaders of the future (Guo, 2003; Sharma &
Bhatnagar; 2009; Roberts, Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Smith & Victorson, 2012). Performance
on these competences is typically assessed against the performance of other individuals (i.e.,
68 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
according to relative cut off point: performing better than peers) or against a certain threshold
(i.e., according to an absolute cut off point: scoring at least 4 out of 5 on 7 out of 10
competences). So called, performance-potential matrices are frequently used for talent
identification. Only employees who demonstrate a high level of competence and
simultaneously show high potential will then be considered as talented (Chamorro-Premuzic
& Furnham, 2010). Organizations sometimes opt to predefine the number of employees who
can be granted the label of ‘talented’(e.g., 5 percent of the organization’s population),
resulting in forced rankings or classifications (Silzer & Church, 2010).
The human capital perspective on talent described above typically draws inspiration from a
resource-based view on humans, in which employees are directed towards creating added
value for their organizations (Dries, in press). Inkson (2008) warns us for the potential pitfalls
of labeling employees as ‘human capital’, who are manageable towards certain outcomes in
the same way other resources are. By characterizing humans as capital the changing and
highly unpredictable nature of individual attitudes and behaviors is not taken into
consideration adequately (De Vos & Dries, 2013). Consequently, investigating talent
management purely from a resource-based view seems insufficient to capture psychological
mechanisms that come into play when managing individuals.
In addition, organizations voice concern about applying workforce differentiation for three
main reasons. Firstly, organizations are not convinced that workforce differentiation will
positively affect the attainment of strategic goals due to the potentially negative impact
unequal treatment can exert on the motivation and performance level of employees not
identified as talented (Gelens, Dries, Hofmans & Pepermans, in press). Secondly, certain
organizations adopt a reluctant attitude towards differentiation because such an elitist
69
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
interpretation of talent clashes with their culture (Iles, Chuai & Preece, 2010). Thirdly, talent
management is characterized by a disturbing lack of lucidity regarding definition, scope and
aims (Lewis & Heckman, 2006), partly driven by the limited clarity the human capital
perspective offers about the precise meaning of the underlying construct ‘talent’ (GallardoGallardoet al., in press; Tansley, 2011), leaving organizations with only minimal theoretical
foundations to base their differentiation decisions on (Thunnissen, Boselie & Fruytier, in
press). In fact, McDonnell et al. (2010) argue that organizations identify and develop talent
via informal and ad hoc means.
2.3 Methodology
We conducted an online literature search for our multidisciplinary review, and for doing so
we took four different steps to establish our final body of peer-reviewed, academic articles
considered in this review.
Step 1: Clarifying the talent construct
Both in everyday parlance and in the workplace, talent is used in a number of different ways,
which leads to conceptual ambiguity. With the review at hand, we want to contribute to more
conceptual clarity about the term talent. To find those articles that would be most informative
for this purpose, we first developed a general working definition of talent based on the
meaning contemporary English dictionaries ascribe to the term (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., in
press). In English, talent is commonly understood as corresponding to an above-average
ability that makes the individuals who possess, detect, develop, and deploy it, perform
excellently in a given performance domain (Gagné, 2004; Tansley, 2011).
70 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Step 2: Selecting search method
To achieve an extensive overview of talent identification that can account for evolution in the
field, we used 1993 as the starting point of the search, covering insights developed over the
last twenty years. As we were interested in talent identification in the context of the business
world, specifically, we selected Business Source Premier (BSP) as the database of departure.
We started our search by tracking articles that had talent in their title, whichresulted in a large
number of hits across a wide range of journals. A preliminary analysis of these articles
showed that talent was sometimes associated with ‘gifts’ and ‘strengths’. Consequently, we
decided to incorporate these two terms to the online literature search. This decision
wasfundamentally based on two reasons. Firstly, both strengths and gifts refer to attributes
that generate excellence, just as talent does. Strengths are frequently used to denote positive
characteristics of individuals that make them thrive in work and/or leisure contexts (Luthans,
2002). Gifts are most frequently used in an educational context to describe the specific innate
aptitudes of schoolchildren as a necessary condition for achieving an excellent performance
(Gagné, 2004). Secondly, the conceptual nature of gifts and strengths, contrary to that of
talent, has received considerable attention in the academic literature. Because our aim is to
establish a stronger theoretical basis for talent identification informed by a clearer
conceptualization of talent, we were particularly interested in articles with strong theoretical
foundations in our literature search. Given the focus of the present review, each of our main
search terms (i.e., talents, gifts, and strengths) was combined with search terms representing
identification in terms of measurement.
Step 3: Establishing exclusion criteria
71
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
Our search in BSP resulted in a large number of hits. From a first analysis, we concluded that
the majority of articles corresponding to our search terms were not relevant to our topic of
interest. Therefore, we chose to work with explicit exclusion criteria with the goal of
selecting only those articles that would be truly informative to our systematic literature
review. We selected articles based on three exclusion criteria, in accordance with our
working definition of talent: (a) articles that do not refer to human attributes1; (b) articles
using talent as interchangeable with people or employees 2 ; and (c) articles that do not
mention their vision on, or definition of the concept of talent3 (or gifts, or strengths).
Step 4: Expanding the search
Because our aim was to contribute to better theoretical foundations for talent management by
considering academic domains outside the HRM field, we expanded our search to the
PsycINFO database. The same criteria for exclusion were applied. The searches conducted
across both databases resulted in a final set of 161 articles withheld for this review (see
Figure 2.1). In AppendixA (Table A.1, p. 197), more detailed information is provided on the
nature of the selected articles (i.e., if they were empirical or theoretical). Although the
obtained article list may not be exhaustive, we are confident it is at least representative of the
work published within the field.
1
We for example excluded: Florano, E. R. (2003). Assessment of the strengths of the new ASEAN agreement on
transboundary haze pollution. International Review for Environmental Strategies, 14, 127-147.
2
We for example excluded: Milton, L. P. (2003). An identity perspective on the propensity of high-tech talent to unionize.
Journal of labor research, 24(1), 31-53.
3
We for example excluded: Ng, E. S., & Burke, R. J. (2005). Person–organization fit and the war for talent: does diversity
management make a difference?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(7), 1195-1210.
72 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Figure 2.1
Number of articles selected from BSP and PsycINFO according to keywords used
2.4 Subdivision of talent into two main components
From our literature review two components were identified as necessary conditions for
achieving excellence—i.e., be talented. These were: an ability and an affective component
(further subdivided into motivation to invest and interests). Without the necessary abilities,
employees can never achieve excellence, even when interests and motivations are strong. In
contrast, when employees do possess the necessary abilities, but currently do not display a
high level of interest or motivation in that specific ability domain, excellence—although
currently not achieved—might be reached in the future by stimulating employees to discover
and undertake activities that (better) match their motivation and interest areas.
73
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
Although most people agree that talent manifests itself in observable excellence, and one
could thus argue that excellent performance is the best measure of talent—a view often
subscribed to by HR practitioners—we posit that it is crucial to detect the two underlying
components of talent, as well. Only by assessing both components, employees who are
currently not performing excellently, but have the capacity (i.e., ability) to do so in the future,
can be managed towards excellence by directing them towards activities that they like, find
important (i.e., interests), and want to invest energy in (i.e., motivation). In accordance with
Silzer & Church (2010), we posit that talent identification practices should not only aim to
detect the talent already manifested in an organization, but also those employees who have
the potential to be excellent in different (larger) roles or activities in the future.
The ability component is discussed in most depth in the giftedness literature, while the
affective component resonates through the giftedness literature, the vocational psychology
literature, and the positive psychology literature. The giftedness literature will be the point of
departure in this review, because it is the most established with respect to the
conceptualization of talent, therefore directly countering the main limitation of the talent
management literature.
2.4.1 The ability component of talent
2.4.1.1 Definition
Across all relevant literature streams talent is frequently associated with, and even equated to,
excellent performance, which is adequately illustrated in the federal definition widely used in
educational settings in the United States: “Talented individuals are those identified by
professionally qualified persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high
74 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
performance” (Periathiruvadi & Rinn, 2012, p. 153). Because the focus lies on the utilization
of outstanding abilities, we label this the ability component of talent. Insights into this
component are mainly found in the giftedness literature, situated in the educational field
(Brown et al., 2005; Heller, 2004; Mayer, 2005; Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). Primarily
based on the work of Gagné (1998a, 1998b, 2004), we propose the following definition of the
ability component of talent:
Talent refers to systematically developed innate abilities that drive excellent
performance, in comparison to other individuals of the same age or experience, in
one or more domains of human functioning.
First element: Excellent performance in a specific domain of human functioning. At the
onset of the giftedness literature in 1920, talented children were defined as children who
achieved high IQ scores due to a fixed innate trait. This was reflected in psychometric
definitions of talent that focused on achieving a certain score, typically on an IQ test tapping
into intellectual giftedness (Preckel & Thiemann, 2003; Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998).
It turned out, however, that the correlation between a single IQ score and exceptional
performance later in life was rather weak (Baldwin, 2005; Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer,
1993; Ruban & Reis, 2005). Informed by this finding, scholars in the giftedness literature
currently tend to advocate a multidimensional conception of talent building on domainspecific theories of intelligence referring to different areas of human functioning (Bailey &
Morley, 2006; Major, Johnson & Deary, 2012; Robinson, Zigler & Gallagher, 2000;
Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998). Within this perspective, the conceptualization of talent that
Gagné (2004) developed in his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMTG) is
75
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
frequently cited. Based on Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983, in Bailey &
Morley, 2006; Baldwin, 2005), in which nine forms of intelligence were incorporated (i.e.,
linguistic intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence, bodilykinesthetic intelligence, musical intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, naturalistic
intelligence, existential intelligence, and spiritual intelligence), Gagné distinguished between
four ability domains (i.e., intellectual, creative, socio-affective,and sensori-motor) that can
lead to extraordinary performances in seven domains of human functioning (i.e., academics,
arts, business, leisure, social action, sports, and technology). Other conceptualizations of
talent closely resemble that of Gagné, but differ slightly in terms of categorization and
specificity of the ability domains, and the human functioning domains considered (Feldhusen,
1994). Gagné’s explicit distinction between ability domains and human functioning domains,
referring respectively to innate gifts and developed talents, is a particular strength of his
definition of talent.
Second element: Systematically developed innate abilities. Scholars situated in the
giftedness literature are generally convinced that the aptitudes necessary to develop talent in a
specific domain are only present in a small proportion of the population because they are
genetically inherited. Although many people believe that genius is created purely through
genetics—known as the ‘Amadeus Myth’—innate dispositions are, although necessary, not
sufficient to ensure high-level achievement (Robinson et al., 2000). Innate abilities, referred
to by Gagné (1998a) as gifts, must be nurtured into talents in order to deliver excellent
performance in at least one domain of human functioning (Baldwin, 2005). Hence, extended
practice is a necessary condition for the manifestation of talents. This can be attained by
engaging in formal, non-formal, or informal learning activities inside or outside of the
school- or workplace (Gagné; 2004; Ericsson et al., 1993). Accordingly, individuals who are
76 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
detected as talented are frequently given special (educational) provisions to further enhance
the development of their rare talents (Pfeiffer, 2009, Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998).
2.4.1.2Identification
The main criterion used to detect the ability component of talent is (excellent) performance.
To this end, cut-off points, either with a relative (e.g., the top 10 percent of performers of a
certain group) or an absolute norm (e.g., those individuals that perform above a certain
score)are frequently applied for distinguishing between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’
(Bélanger & Gagné, 2006; Pfeiffer, 2009). This principle is often installed in the HRM
practice, as well. The issue of cut-off points is closely related to discussions of prevalence,
wildly held in the giftedness literature. Prevalence expresses the percentage of individuals
within a given population that can be considered talented (Gagné, 1998b; Gagné, 2004).
Typically, cut-offs range from the top 0.001 to 10 percent of performers, representing
extremely to mildly talented individuals in comparison to their peers (Gagné, 1998a; Pfeiffer,
2009).
Informed by theories about multiple intelligence, multifaceted and domain-specific ability
tests capable of capturing excellence are advised for talent identification (Bailey & Morley,
2006; Bianco, 2010; Preckel & Thiemann, 2003; Robinson et al., 2009). Because detection is
conducted at an (early) age at which talent is not yet fully manifested, ability tests are often
applied to detect gifts, rather than talents. Examples of frequently mentioned tests for
detecting giftedness are the WISC-R and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test,
Standard Ravens Progressive Matrices (SPM), Advanced Ravens Progressive Matrices
(APM), Torrance Tests of Creativity, SAGES, Scholastic Aptitude Test (TAP), Defining
Issue Test (DIT) and also online tests such as the Self-Regulation and Concentration Test
77
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
(Achter, Lubinski & Benbow, 1996; Baldwin, 2005; Periathiruvadi & Rinn, 2012; Preckel &
Tiemann, 2003; Saccuzzo & Johnson, 1995;Sanders, Lubinski & Benbow, 1995).
Cognitive ability tests, such as the WISC-R, SPM and DIT are the most investigated tests in
this area of research. These tests are at the level of standardized tests in terms of reliability
and objectivity. However, it is argued that the predictive validity of ability tests for
performance later in life decreases drastically over time, resulting in a relative low predictive
power for early job performance and occupational success (Ericsson et al., 1993). Therefore,
ability tests are frequently combined with subjective judgments through supervisor, peer, and
self-evaluation (Bailey & Morley, 2006; Baldwin, 2005). A distinction is being made
between ratings scales and nomination forms as evaluation tools. Supervisor (or teacher)
rating scales are the second most frequently applied instruments, following IQ tests, to assess
giftedness. The Gifted Rating Scales-School Form (GRS-S) is a teacher rating scale that
shows satisfactory reliability and validity across five different cultures (Jarosewich, Pfeiffer
& Morris, 2002; Li, Lee, Pfeiffer, Kamata & Kumtepe, 2009; Pfeiffer, 2009). It is used to
measure domain-specific abilities with the help of six scales that measure intellectual ability,
academic ability, artistic ability, creative ability, leadership, and motivation. Other frequently
applied supervisor rating scales are the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of
Superior Students, Marker’s DISCOVER model, and the Iowa Acceleration Scale (Pfeiffer,
2009). When slightly adjusted, these scales can also be applied for self- and peer evaluations.
A supervisor-nomination form provides brief descriptions of a number of aptitudes and
talents on which teachers can nominate the students they perceive as the best performers of
the class/group in that particular domain (Gagné, 1998a). The descriptions were also
modified in order to adequately function as peer and self-nomination tools.
78 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
2.4.2 The affective component of talent
2.4.2.1 Definition
Since the eighties a wide range of studies have discussed what we label ‘affective’ factors as
vital to excellent performance (Bailey & Morley, 2006; Gagné; 2010; Robinson &
Clinkenbeard, 1998). Kane (1986, in Bailey & Morley, 2006, p. 222) summarizes the main
point of these studies adequately by stating that the ultimate factors accounting for
achievement are likely to be the unique personal and behavioral dispositions that the
individual brings to the actual performance. Attention for the affective component of talent
resonates through different literature streams, more specifically the giftedness literature, the
positive psychology literature, and the vocational psychology literature. The multiple insights
we collected from these different streams are summarized in the following definition of
talent, in which the ability component and the affective component of talent are integrated:
Talent refers to systematically developed innate abilities of individuals that are
deployed in activitiesthey like, find important, and in which they want to invest
energy. It enables individuals to perform excellently in one or more domains of
human functioning, operationalized as performing better than other individuals of
the same age or experience, or as performing consistently at their personal best.
While the definition of the ability component of talent focused primarily on multiple
intellectual abilities, the affective component considers non-intellectual attributes and how
these differentially affect the performance of individuals: “To predict which environments an
individual is likely to enter, work in, and thrive in, you must not only know what they can do
(their abilities, capabilities), you must also know what they want (their interests, needs, or
motives)”(Lubinski & Benbow, 2000, p. 146). As illustrated by this fragment and by the
79
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
above definition of talent, the affective component is made up of two main elements:
‘motivation to invest’ (i.e., activities in which one wants to invest energy) and ‘interest areas’
(i.e., activities one likes and finds important). These two aspects operate, next to ability, as
necessary preconditions to excellent performance.
First element: Motivation to invest. In the literature focusing on the affective component of
talent mainly the concept of motivation, in relation to investments, has received attention.
The three-band talent definition of Renzulli (1986) is an adequate illustration. Renzulli’s
definition, frequently applied in educational settings, states that talent is the combination of
three clusters, namely general or specific high ability, task commitment, and motivation. In
sync, numerous other authors argue that motivation plays a central role in achieving
excellence in that it exerts a positive influence on the willingness, capacity and preference to
engage in deliberate practice (Bailey & Morley, 2006; Ericsson et al., 1993; Feldhusen,
1994). Deliberate practice refers to activities that are structured, goal-orientated, require
effort and are not always inherently enjoyable, with an average of ten years elapsing between
first work and best work. According to Ericsson et al. (1993) and subscribed by the majority
of scholars in the giftedness literature, the motivation to engage in lifelong deliberate practice
differs among individuals, making high-level performance (i.e., achieving considerably better
than others) not feasible for everyone (Milgram & Hong, 1999).
Although this rather ‘elitist’ interpretation of the three-band definition of Renzulli (1986)
remains, to a large extent, intact in the giftedness literature today, Renzulli advocated a more
‘democratic’ conception of talent in 2005. He stated that everyone has a role to play in
societal improvement and, as a result, we should provide all students with the opportunities,
resources, and encouragement necessary to achieve their full talent through maximizing their
80 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
involvement and motivation. Renzulli’s (2005) approach to talent, which is quite uncommon
in the giftedness literature, is closely related to the approach adopted by authors situated in
the positive psychology field due to the ‘non-selective’ stance it takes, which results in an
emphasis on performing to the maximum of one’s capacity (i.e., at one’s personal best).
In the positive psychology literature the term strengths, instead of talents, is used to denote
positive characteristics that allow individuals to thrive and prosper (i.e., perform at one’s
personal best) (Luthans, 2002). Buckingham and Clifton (2001) state that each individual
possesses a certain set of strengths (e.g., adaptability, focus, and discipline) and that it is the
specific constellation of strengths that makes everyone unique. According to these authors,
innate factors purely determine which set of strengths can be developed and not whether or
not you can develop strengths, as assumed in the giftedness literature. The key is to detect
one’s unique strengths in order to deploy them in activities one is passionate about. The
assumption is that only in activities that are conducted with passion, peak performances (i.e.,
episodes of superior functioning; Privette, 1983) can be achieved (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). With the concept of ‘passion’, described as the inclination towards
an activity one likes, finds important and in which one wants to invest energy (Vallerand et
al., 2003), the essential role of motivation and interests in attaining excellence is highlighted.
The literature on positive organizational behavior (POB), which has the positive psychology
movement as a point of departure, translated these findings to today’s workplace. Next to
‘developable’, POB added ‘measurable’, and ‘manageable’ towards performance
improvement in a work atmosphere as definitional criteria for strengths (Luthans, 2002).
Hope (i.e., believing you can set goals, figure out how to achieve them, and motivate yourself
to accomplish them), optimism (i.e., positive outcome expectancy and/or positive causal
81
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
attribution), happiness (i.e., the affective and cognitive evaluations of people’s lives), and
emotional intelligence (i.e., the capacity to perceive, express, and regulate one’s own
emotions and those of others), are frequently mentioned as strengths that meet the inclusion
criteria set out by POB (Luthans, 2002). Those strengths are believed to relate to positive
physical and psychological health outcomes, which in turn leads to increased performance
(Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan & Hurling, 2011).
Second element: Interest. Next to motivation to invest, interests are widely discussed in the
giftedness literature and the vocational psychology literature and assumed to have a positive
influence on excellent performance (Bailey & Morley, 2006). Gagné (2004) traditionally
addressed this factor in his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) as an
interpersonal catalyst that influenced the development of gifts into talents. In 2008, Gagné
revised his DMGT and replaced the seven domains of human functioning (i.e., academics,
arts, business, leisure, social action, sports, and technology) he initially distinguished by six
major occupational groups (i.e., technical, science and technology, arts, social service,
administration and sales, and business operations) based on Holland’s work on vocational
interests (Gagné, 2008). This shift reflects the increasing attention given to interest areas
when investigating talented children, adolescents and adults—also referred to as
‘preferences’ and ‘orientations’ (Milgram & Hong, 1999). Identification of interest areas is
believed to be crucial in order to locate activities in which interests can be reinforced and
actualized, leading ideally to the delivery of excellent performance (Lubinski & Benbow,
2000).
Accordingly, vocational psychologists assess interests as a key component of talent with the
goal of supporting individuals in finding a fit between the person they are and the job or
82 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
career they aspire to so that extraordinary performance, operationalized as performance at
one’s personal best, might be achieved (Arnold & Cohen, 2008; Greenhaus & Callagan,
2006). From the 1990s onwards, several authors in the giftedness literature, as well, have
addressed this issue by advocating that person-environment fit is crucial for obtaining optimal
achievement. This is predicted by a match between personal abilities and ability requirements
of the environment on the one hand, and a match between personal preferences and reinforces
available from the environment on the other (Achter et al., 1996; Achter, Lubinski, Benbow
& Eftekhari-Sajani, 1999).
2.4.2.2Identification
Scholars interested in the affective component of talent have suggested a number of
instruments capable of detecting motivation to invest and interests. These instruments are
seen as a necessary extension to ability measures, because talent is believed to be a complex
constellation in which abilities, motivations and interests interact in determining
excellence.Because motivation to invest and interests are seen as closely linked, the majority
of the proposed instruments measure both aspects simultaneously. We distinguish two large
groups of measures, i.e. assessments tools and reflection exercises.
Assessment tools. Super (1984; in Milgram & Hong, 1999) stated that the performance of
children in challenging extracurricular activities might function as an early indicator of
vocational interests (Migram & Hong, 1999). Accordingly, the Tel-Aviv Activities and
Accomplishment Inventory was developed to shed light on challenging leisure activities and
accomplishments in seven specific activity types (i.e., science, social leadership, dance,
music, art, creative writing, and drama). In the educational context, portfolios are advised
within which the broad development of children on teacher assigned tasks and student
83
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
selected tasks could be integrated. By leaving room for self-selection supervisors can
diagnose students’ interests and motivations. By means of portfolios a multidimensional
approach to talent identification could be adopted by incorporating observations and
interviews in addition to ability tests (Bianco, 2010; Ruban & Reis, 2005). Concerning the
former, observations related to open-ended, real-life, and challenging tasks are suggested
because these can account for a wide variety of early expressed interests and motives
(Callahan, 2005).
Vocational psychologists mainly developed and validated self-assessment instruments to
(re)orient individuals towards an occupation that cultivates their motivations and interests. In
this regard, questionnaires to detect the occupational themes Holland theorized in his
hexagonal model, such as the Strong Interest Inventory, are of particular value (Feldhusen,
1994; Lubinski & Benbow, 2000; Larson & Borgen, 2002). This questionnaire supports
individuals in gaining insight into six vocational interests denoted with the acronym
RIASEC: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising and Conventional.
The Study of Values is a similar self-report questionnaire that assesses the relative
prominence of six values, informed by the six theoretical types of Spranger (1928, in
Schmidt, Lubinski & Benbow, 1998): Theoretical, Economic, Political, Aesthetic, Social and
Religious. Closely related to this is the Career Anchors Inventory as developed by Schein
(1996), that can be used as a self-assessment tool to discover one’s self-concept concerning
one’s basic motives, interests, and needs. These elements are incorporated in 7 distinct
anchors: technical/functional competence, managerial competence, security and stability,
autonomy and independence, entrepreneurial creativity, service and dedication to a cause, and
pure challenge (Schein, 1996).
84 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
In the positive psychology literature, as well, a number of instruments are proposed to
identify talent as operationalized in strengths. The StrengthsFinder is a validated selfassessment tool that detects areas one loves investing energy in and in which one has the
ability to deliver consistent near-perfect performances (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). The
Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS), developed by Peterson and Seligman
(2006), is frequently cited, and demonstrates good psychometric properties in different
languages (Brdar & Kashdan, 2010; Furnham & Lester, 2012; Linley et al., 2007; LittmanOvadia & Lavy, 2012; Money, Hillenbrand & da Camara, 2008; Rust, Diessner & Reade,
2009). The VIA-IS is a 240-item standardized self-report questionnaire which provides a
classification of six overarching and culturally independent virtues, defined as characteristics
that promote collective and individual greatness (i.e., wisdom and knowledge, courage,
humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence), subdivided into 24 strengths (Money et
al., 2008; Seligman, Steen, Park & Peterson, 2005). The Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths
(IIS) is a similar measure that discovers characteristics that enable human flourishing
(Hatcher & Rogers, 2009). The IIS consists of 64 items classified into eight validated
subscales, which represent a broad range of interpersonal domains: Connect, Engage, Lead,
Direct, Balance, Restrain, Cooperate, and Consider.
Reflection exercises.From the eighties onwards vocational psychologists and positive
psychologists have been developing more open-ended methods for talent identification.
These are believed to offer a valuable addition to (standardized) assessment tools, because
they are deemed more suitable to grasp the subjective and dynamic nature of motivations and
interests, seen as components of talent (Young & Collin, 2000). Consequently, the advised
exercises focus on the unique and continually evolving meaning individuals ascribe to talent,
85
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
which is shaped by the interplay between personal and environmental influences experienced
over the lifespan. In order to detect these evolving perceptions it is advocated that
identification should be conducted repeatedly throughout the life and career span (Ibarra,
1999). This represents a shift towards approaching careers as a process that is subjectively
experienced across the lifespan (i.e., a focus on the subjective career) rather than a product
that is objectively measured at one point in the career span (i.e., a focus on the objective
career). Parker (2002, p. 86) states that, “…the subjective career reflects a dynamic unfolding
process that emerges from the individual perception of the career actor”. Recommended
exercises support individuals in identifying their individually constructed and evolving
definition of talent by reflecting on meaningful life and work experiences and on how talent
plays a role in them.
The biographical method (Kelchtermans, 1993) is an interviewing technique in which
individuals tell the story of their lives and simultaneously attribute meaning to it. Successful
moments experienced over the course of life, such as the discovery or deployment of certain
talents, are probed during the interview.Another more general approach for identifying talent
is suggested within the appreciative inquiry (AI) field, which is closely related to the positive
psychology movement. Although AI originally referred to a research perspective applied for
establishing and facilitating collective change in social arrangements and processes, it can be
translated to a more individual level valuable for detecting talent (Cooperrider & Srivasta,
1987). The basic idea underlying AI is that the exploration of perceived positive aspects
related to the self (e.g., talents) and the current situation (e.g., availability of learning
opportunities), results in the formation of ideas of what might and could become in the future
on the basis of which individuals can (re)shape their life/career in a positive way.
86 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Besides general methods, more specific exercises capable of eliciting the dynamic and
subjective meaning of talent are proposed. The Intelligent Career Card Sort (ICCS) is a tool
for career exploration in that it stimulates individuals in clarifying, reflecting on, and
evaluating their knowing-how (i.e., an individual’s repertoire of career-relevant skills and
expertise that supports current work behavior), knowing-why (i.e., a mixture of an
individual’s personality, aptitudes, values, and interests), and knowing-whom (i.e., an
individual’s work relationships that supports a person’s unfolding career) (Amundson, Parker
& Arthur, 2002; Parker, 2002). ICCS consists of three sets of cards, responding to the three
described types of knowing. Individuals select the 7 most applicable cards in each set and
rank them according to importance. This results in 21 themes that can function as input for
journal writing and/or listening activities. The main goal of autobiographical journal writing
is the development of an in-depth personal narrative that draws on specific career and leisure
experiences. The listening activities provide individuals with opportunities to discuss their
knowing-how, knowing-why and knowing-whom in a group setting. In general, ICCS assists
individuals in acquiring self-knowledge on three different aspects of the self, resulting in a
holistic sense of who they currently are and who they thrive to be in the future, which might
support them in making more effective career investments. By extensively elaborating on
knowing-how and knowing-why, this exercise not only guides individuals in reflection on
their ability, but also on their motivations and interests. By integrating aspects associated
with knowing-whom, the role context plays in sculpting life according to perceived talents is
emphasized.
The exercise on ‘possible selves’—defined as people’s ideas of what they might, would like,
or fear to become— is a similar exercise in that it helps people reflect on their interests,
values and aspirations by letting them create a personal narrative in which hopes and fears are
87
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
expressed (Markus & Nurius, 1986). This can be applied to help shape the future in the
desired direction and identify barriers to talent development (Whitty, 2002). The reflected
best self-exercise supports individuals in gaining insight into their unique talents by
surveying people in their surroundings about moments where they were at their personal best
(Meyers, van Woerkom & Bakker, 2012; Roberts, Dutton, Spreitzer, Heaphy & Quinn, 2005).
2.5 Discussion
Our discussion of insights originating from different literature streams resulted in a general
definition of talent in which the ability component is complemented with the affective
component. Based on this definition we conclude that talent consists of three central
characteristics, which embody the specificity of talent: manifestation in excellent
performance, developed innate abilities, and passion—with the latter further subdivided into
‘motivation to invest’ (i.e., activities one wants to invest energy in) and ‘interests’ (i.e.,
activities one likes and finds important).
2.5.1 Tensions between talent and related concepts
The three central characteristics listed above can help distinguish between talent,
competence, and potential. Competence and potential are frequently misused as
interchangeable with talent in the talent management field, leaving HR-practitioners
interested in implementing talent identification with a great deal of confusion.
Difference 1: Talent versus competence. Scholars in the giftednessliterature posit that
theinnatecomponents necessary to develop talent are not present in everyone (Gagné, 1998a;
1998b). Positive psychologistsandvocationalpsychologists, on the other hand, state that
88 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
everyone can develop talents. However, they assume that innate components determine
which unique talents individuals can develop, implying that individuals cannot acquire talents
in all domains of human functioning (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). In contrast, almost
everyone and in nearly every domain, can develop a competence, if the environmental
conditions are favorable. The deployment ofcompetencesresults in effective performance, but
not necessarily in excellentperformance. The difficulty in distinguishing between talent and
competence can be brought back to ‘manifestation issues’. Talent manifests itself in
extremely good competences. Consequently, someone whois talentedin a particular
fieldwillalso possess the competences thatarerelated to this talent. However, atalented
personwill rank amongthe top1to 10 percent bestperformers on this competence
ascomparedto peers or to his or her personal best (Gagné, 1998a; Buckingham & Clifton,
2001). Thisemphasizesthe rarity of talent, which is not a prerequisite for competence(Gagné,
2004). Ifwe translate this totalentidentification, this implies that competence measures can be
applied to detect the ability component of talent, as is frequently done in organizations. The
focus, however, should be on individuals who achieve exceptionally high scores as an
expression of talent and not merely competence. To this end, organizations should develop
and apply measures in which ceiling effects can be avoided so that individuals ranging from
mildly to extremely talented—who might fall outside of the norms of standard tests—can be
adequately identified (Bianco, 2010).
In addition, the conceptualization of talent, in comparison with that of competence, pays
more attention to passion as a necessary condition for achieving excellence. Confusion often
arisesbecausethe definition ofcompetence (i.e., a group ofinterrelatedknowledge, skills and
attitudes that enables the delivery of effective performance) includesattitudinal aspects, such
as motivation, which is an important element of passion (Draganidis & Mentzas, 2006;
89
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
Jackson & Schuler, 2003). In the definition of competence, however, motivation is not
operationalized as ‘passionately investing’. Having the (intrinsic or extrinsic) motivation to
conduct a certain activitydoes necessarily imply that one likes to invest time and energy in it.
The latter refers to the aspect of passion, which is a specific element of talent that is not
associated with competence, and should be explicitly measured—in addition to ability—to
identify talent. Since talent is associated with passion it is frequently argued that ‘playing
your talents’ generates feelings of fulfillment and has an energizing effect, making it the ideal
way to cope with high work demands caused by the increasing complexity of the knowledge
economy (White, Hill, McGovern, Mills & Smeaton, 2003).
Difference 2: Talent versus potential. Potentialrefers tofuture opportunities, to the capacity
tobesomethingmorethan one presently is:
“In work environments, potential is typically used to suggest that an individual has
the qualities (e.g., characteristics, motivation, skills, abilities, and experiences) to
effectively perform and contribute in broader or different roles in the organization at
some point in the future (Silzer & Church, 2009, p. 379)”.
Potential thus denotes something that has not yet manifested, but is latently present
(Robinson, Fetters, Riester & Bracco, 2009). Talent, as opposed topotential, has a here-andnow character, reflected in the ultimate goal of talent management that is the sustainable
deployment of detected talents in light of the strategic aims of an organization (Lepak &
Snell, 2002). Althoughlatent(innate) factorsunderlie talent, the emphasis is onthe
manifestation oftalent into excellence. Consequently, the manifestation in excellence could be
described as the distinguishing factor between talent and potential.
90 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
2.5.2 Tensions between different literaturestreams
Although scholars situated in different literature streams seem to agree on the central
characteristics of talent, a closer analysis shows that the specific interpretation of those
characteristics varies between different literature streams, resulting in specific talent
definitions, as visualized in Table 3.1. The differences between literature strands can be
explained by a general tension between equity and equality issues.
Table 2.1
Talent definition and its components by different literature streams
Literature stream
HRM
Talent component
Talent definition
Human capital
Talent
refers
to
the
stock
of
competences, knowledge, social and
personality attributes which is embodied
in the ability to perform labor so as to
produce economic value
Giftedness
Ability component +
motivational component +
interest component
Talent refers to systematically developed
innate abilities of individuals that are
deployed in activities they like, find
important, and want to invest energy in,
resulting in excellent performance in
comparison to other individuals of the
same ager or experience, in one or more
domains of human functioning
Positive psychology
and vocational
Ability component +
motivational component +
interest component
ƒŽ‡–
”‡ˆ‡”•
†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡†
–‘
‹ƒ–‡
•›•–‡ƒ–‹…ƒŽŽ›
ƒ„‹Ž‹–‹‡•
‘ˆ
‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ• –Šƒ– ƒ”‡ †‡’Ž‘›‡† ‹
psychology
ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡•–Š‡›Ž‹‡ǡˆ‹†‹’‘”–ƒ–ƒ†
™ƒ– –‘ ‹˜‡•– ‡‡”‰› ‹ǡ ”‡•—Ž–‹‰ ‹
…‘•‹•–‡–Ž› ’‡”ˆ‘”‹‰
ƒ–
–Š‡‹”
’‡”•‘ƒŽ„‡•–
The use of standardized instruments to detect rare talents has been contested due to the
ensuing underrepresentation of minority groups (Callahan, 2005; Pfeiffer, 2009; Milgram &
91
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
Hong, 1999; Reis & Ruban, 2005; Robinson et al., 2000). Consequently, researchers situated
in the giftedness literature have sought valid ways to detect talents regardless of the social,
ethnic, or cultural background one has or the specific (non-traditional) talents one displays
(Preckel & Thiemann, 2003; Saccuzzo & Johnson, 1995; Sanders et al., 1995). In so doing,
scholars want to guarantee that all individuals have an equal chance to obtain the talent label.
However, the underlying assumption is held that not all individuals are talented, which
legitimizes an unequal treatment under the condition of unbiased identification. Although
Gagné (2011) claims that the giftedness literature has become increasingly democratic due to
the inclusion of different backgrounds and a wide variety of talents, it has held onto its elitist
view on talent, in that it is concerned mostly with issues of equity (i.e., everyone should have
an equal opportunity to earn the rare label of talent, which in turn leads to an unequal
treatment between the identified and the non-identified) rather than with issues of equality
(i.e., everyone is talented and should get the ‘same’ tailored treatment on the basis of the
identification of their specific talents).
In contrast, vocational psychologists and positive psychologists pursue equality. They posit
that talent identification should lead to an individualized treatment of all individuals, given
that everyone possesses a unique constellation of talents that needs to be deployed in order to
consistently reach the maximum of one’s capacity (Seligman et al., 2005). Adherents of such
‘strengths-based approach’ believe that the productivity and satisfaction of employees will
substantially increase if they are given the opportunity to do the work in which they can reach
their personal best, which in turnpositivelyaffects the organization (Buckingham &Clifton,
2001).
92 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
2.6 Managerial relevance
Range of possible measures and methods for talent identification. Organizations seem to
frequently base their talent investments solely on performance scores, fact that is deemed
insufficient to capture talent (Rea, 2000). In order to obtain a holistic view of the talents of
employees, combining instruments that measure ability, motivation, and interests is advisable
(Parker, 2002). In Table 3.2 an overview of the discussed measures and methods and their
characteristics is provided. The presented measures and methods emphasize different
components (i.e., ability, interests, and motivation) of the construct of talent and vary in
terms of the measurement approach taken (i.e., standardized versus open-ended).
Each measurement approach has its own specific possibilities and limitations, which pleads
for a mixture of different measures and methods. Standardized measures are extensively
validated which seems to guarantee the quality of the measure. Furthermore, these measures
are easy to use within an organizational context because they can be applied to a large
number of people and this in a standardized and non-time consuming way. However, due to
the standardization it is not possible to capture the complex nature of motivations and
interests as differentially experienced by individuals. Rather, these can be detected by
applying open-ended exercises in which individuals narratively reflect on the subjective
meaning they ascribe to talent. Since the focus is on detecting the unique perception
individuals have of talent, we can describe these as extremely individual exercises. Such
individual methods might be difficult to manage in organizations that have limited resources
in terms of time and money and must therefore closely monitor the added value of every
investment. In addition, in order to adequately conduct these open-ended methods a certain
expertise is required, which might need to be sought externally.
93
ltidisciplinary review
s
ity
What?
Motivation
Interests
Characteristics of the Measures & Methods
Who?
Tests
Self
Peer
Supervisor
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
94
How?
Standardized
Open-endeda
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ity
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
What?
Motivation
Interests
Characteristics of the Measures & Methods
Who?
Tests
Self
Peer
Supervisor
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
95
X
X
X
X
How?
Standardized
Open-endeda
X
X
X
X
X
ltidisciplinary review
ity
What?
Motivation
Interests
Characteristics of the Measures & Methods
Who?
Tests
Self
Peer
Supervisor
How?
Standardized
Open-endeda
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ents and methods that can generate a wide variety of not predefined results
96
X
X
X
X
X
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Choosing between the different methods and measures. We are aware that talent
identification is conducted within the restrictions of a specific organizational setting.
Although the combination of various measures and methods is advised, choices
betweena wide range of possibilities will need to be made in practice. We offer some
guidelines to facilitate this choice.
Strategic alignment. As previously shown, the interpretation of the three central
components of talent varies depending on the literature stream one considers. Similarly,
the specific talent definition organizations adhere to can differ. In this light, strategic
alignment of talent identification practices, especially in terms of measures and methods
used, with the specific talent definition (e.g., emphasizing performance at one’s
personal best or emphasizing performance superior to others) an organization subscribes
to is advised (Zhao & Du, 2011). This accentuates not only the importance of the
alignment of the specific talent definition with the strategic aims of the organization but
also, the alignment of talent identification practices with the specific talent definition.
Psychometric qualities. Besides strategically aligned, measures and methods
should also possess satisfactory psychometric qualities. In the reviewed literature,
however, only limited information was available on the specific psychometric qualities
of the measures and methods. Informed by this, insights stemming from the personnel
selection literature and the social psychology literature were considered as being of
particular value, because they can complement the presented insights rather nicely by
focusing on the quality of the identification process. More specifically, those insights
could help unravel the process underlying talent identification in that they shed light on
how talent assessments are potentially influenced by all sorts of biases inherent to the
97
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
way in which, and by whom measures and methods are applied. Within these literatures,
the mechanisms behind different sorts of biases, such as the leniency effect (i.e.,
attributing more importance to the positive traits of a person than to the negative traits,
resulting in favorable evaluations) and the halo effect (i.e., the presence of certain
qualities makes the rater believe that other qualities are also present in the ratee), have
been investigated in order to improve the validity and effectiveness of judgments of
performance.
A great deal of research has examined how characteristics of raters and ratees
dynamically interact in shaping or potentially biasing assessments conducted in a given
context (Dominik & Gabriel, 2009; Tormala, Jia & Norton, 2012; Tsay & Banaji,
2011). Landy and Farr’s (1980) literature review on the effects of rater and ratee
characteristics on appraisals has shown mixed results for demographic (e.g., sex, age,
race, education), psychological (e.g., self-confidence), job-related (e.g., performance
level), and attitudinal variables (e.g., values, preferences), indicating that no uniform
conclusions could be drawn. When focusing on the interaction between raters and
ratees, the authors suggest that similarity between raters and ratees on background and
attitudinal variables may affect, and potentially bias, ratings. Similarly, it is advocated
that the ‘likeability’ and familiarity between raters and ratees might influence ratings in
a positive way.
As concerns the characteristics of raters, implicit person theories have gained attention
because these might directly influence beliefs about and appraisals of talent, regardless
of the actual behavior of the ratee. Implicit person theories are cognitive assumptions
held about the extent to which attributes of individuals, such as, are fixed (i.e.,
98 Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
fixed/entity
mindset)
or
developable
over
time
due
to
experience
(i.e.,
growth/incremental mindset) (Heslin, Latham & Vandewalle, 2005). A so-called ‘entity
theorist’ will be in favor of conducting a singular assessment in order to identify talent
because the odds of individuals changing over time are believed to be low. An
‘incremental theorist’, on the other hand, will advocate multiple assessments spread
over time, driven by the belief that talent can be developed throughout the life course.
When considering the context within which evaluations are conducted, leniency is
found to be lower in situations in which the importance of rating accuracy is explicitly
stressed. Furthermore, in situations were high performance is expected, raters are more
lenient in their judgments, which is captured by the phenomenon of self-fulfilling
prophecy (Landy & Farr, 1980). It appears, however, that the accuracy of ratings is
higher for favorable than for unfavorable behavior, which has been termed the
‘differential accuracy’ phenomenon (Landy & Farr, 1980). Because talent identification
is concerned with detecting excellent performance, talent appraisals thus might be more
accurate than general appraisals. Interestingly, scholars in the giftedness literature report
opposing phenomena—i.e., high IQ scores show less reliability than average or low IQ
scores (Lubinski & Benbow, 2000; Robinson et al., 2000). The psychometric qualities
of different measurement approaches (i.e., other ratings versus standardized tests) to
talent identification thus seem to differ widely and could vary depending on the context
in which they are conducted (Landy & Farr, 1980). Informed by these insights we
advise practitioners to evaluate the psychometric qualities of each measure within the
contextual boundaries in which it is executed. This should be a main concern when
conducting talent identification in order to avoid ‘false hits’ or ‘false misses’.
99
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
The personnel selection literature and the social psychology literature show that talent
assessments are subjective in nature due to the influence of characteristics of raters,
ratees and the context in which they are embedded. We could state that talent is only
detected when it is individually and socially perceived as being present by evaluators.
Therefore, we advise using multisource assessments in order to reduce bias that could
result from using only one assessor (Smither, London & Reilly, 2005). Comparisons
between the effectiveness of ratings of different types of raters (i.e., self, peer,
supervisor) suggest that no solid statements can be made about the higher validity of
one type of rater (Landy & Farr, 1980). A general rule of thumb is that assessments are
accurate when multiple evaluations correspond, making interrater reliability the main
criteria to assess the accuracy of talent judgments. In sync, we suggest combining tests,
self, peer and supervisor instruments that are included in Table 3.2.We strongly advise
organizations to incorporate self-assessment tools in the identification process, because
those could help shed light on motivation and interests areas, components of talent that
are not always completely visible to other parties. Because motivation and interests are
approached as dynamically influenced by personal and environmental factors (Ibarra,
1999), we emphasize that talent identification should be a continuous endeavor. Within
this perspective, life-long interventions for talent identification are deemed suitable, not
just early-career interventions what is the usual case today (Savickas et al., 2009).
2.7Further avenues for research
In the literature the concept of talent and the identification of talent are often addressed
separately, both within and between different disciplines. With this review we aimed to
connect ‘conceptualization’ and ‘identification’ by discussing identification issues
100
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
stemming from a particular conceptualization of talent comprising two main
components (i.e., ability and affective).Our review showed that there is still a lack of
clarity about certain issues in regard to talent identification, which opens up several
interesting avenues for further research.
2.7.1 Contextualizing talent
Contextual factors are recognized as sorting an influence on competence, potential, and
talent. The mastery of each construct depends on a fruitful mixture of personal
characteristics (i.e., intellectually and physically capable to master it)and a facilitating
environment (i.e., environment which stimulates learning) (Capaldo, Iandoli & Zollo,
2006; Thunnissen et al., in press). The situational embeddedness of talent is accentuated
by highlighting that innate abilities (i.e., ability component) need to be fostered in an
environment whereby a wide variety of abilities are appreciated and readily
demonstrated(Bailey & Morley, 2006). By extension, the context partly determines
which interests and motives (i.e., affective component) are socially and individually
perceived as valuable which, in turn, affects the talents that are being developed and
identified (Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998). Because contextual factors do not account
for the particularity of talent, we explicitly chose not to incorporate ‘context’ in our
general talent definition. However, it seems valuable to investigate how the influence of
these factors can be exactly assessedin measures and methods for talent identification—
which remains unclear to a certain extent.
2.7.2From theindividual to theteam level
As discussed, the social psychology literature is not primarily concerned with the
quality of specific measures and methods, but rather, with the quality of the judgment
101
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
process underlying talent identification (Landy & Farr, 1980). From a social psychology
point of view, it would be relevant to examine how talent can be manifested and
identified in team settings (Edwards & Sproull, 1985). By focusing on this more
aggregate level, opportunities arise for studying effects of group climate and social
beliefs on assessments of talent(Oltra & Vivas-López, 2013), which we consider
extremely valuable given the widespread use of teams in organizations (Guzzo &
Dickson, 1996).Because insights on the measurement of talent should be based on
theoretical considerations on the construct of talent, clarifying what a ‘talented team’—
as a separate entity— entails exactly is a first essential step that needs to be established.
2.7.3 In search of a healthy balance between self- and other-identification
A closer examination of the proposed instruments demonstrates that both self and
supervisor assessments could be applied for talent identification. This seems to reflect
issues of accountability for identification, which can be brought back to a wider
discussion held on the self-versus organizational management of the career. Vocational
psychologists and positive psychologists essentially place the accountability for talent
identification with the individual career actor. According to these scholars, assisted selfreflection can support individuals in taking responsibility in designing their careers in
light of their talents, which stresses the importance of self-directedness and personal
agency throughout the enactment of the career (Arnold & Cohen, 2008; Dries, 2011).
This self-management approach stands in stark contrast to the organizational
management approach subscribed to by the HRM field. By detecting talent ‘topdown’,it is accentuated that talent identification is essentially an organizational concern
in that it has to serve strategic purposes (de Vos & Dries, 2013). We posit that, when it
102
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
comes to talent identification, it is advisable to search for a balancebetween self- and
organizational management, resulting in a combination of different measures and
methods for identification as previously discussed (i.e., self-, peer-, and supervisor
assessment). Overall, what seems to be clear is that in order to achieve such a balance, a
reciprocal exchange between knowledge created in different disciplines needs to be
further established.
2.7.4 Inserting employees into the equation
In the present review, we mainly addressed the importance of, and the implications for
talent identification from a managerial point of view. Little attention was paid to how
identification processesare experiencedby employees. Within the rathersegmented
views on talent (i.e., the giftedness literature, and the HRM literature) insufficient
consideration is given to the extent in which the label talent, and the resulting
expectations, matches the aspirations of the identified individual. In addition, feelings
ofinjustice experiencedamong those whowere not identified are often ignored. In this
regard, research that explicitlylinks perceived organizational justice to talentdecisions
forms a valuable contribution to the field (Gelens et al., in press).
Both the giftedness literature and the HRM literature are concerned with the ‘profile’ of
the identified individual. Research in the giftedness literature seems to indicate that
gifted and talented students, who deviate from the norm in an extremely positive way,
experience more difficulties fitting in socially and emotionally (Robinson &
Clinkenbeard, 1998). In the HRM literature, talented employees are frequently
described as ‘special’ in terms of leadership and social skills (Robertset al.,1998; Smith
& Victorson, 2012). Consequently, we could question whether both strands refer to the
103
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
same individuals. Within this regard, longitudinal research that monitors individuals
whowereidentifiedearly throughout their life, to determine whether gifted children are
more likely to be consideredastalented in a work environment as well, would be
valuable. Such research might examine the effectivenessofearlydetection by shedding
light on what early measurement can and cannot predict in terms of outcomes in the
workplace. Multidisciplinary research collaborations are seen as extremely suited for
empirically testing the applicabilityof knowledgeoriginating fromthe giftedness
literatureto organizational talent identification. By exchanging knowledge between
disciplines that traditionally operate separately, it becomes possible to overcome the
limitations, whilst exploiting the specific strengths of each discipline (Khapova &
Arthur, 2010).
104
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
References
Achter, J.A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C.P. (1996). Multipotentiality among the
intellectually gifted: “It was never there and already it’s vanishing”. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 65–76.
Achter, J.A., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C.P., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (1999). Assessing
vocational preferences among intellectually gifted adolescents adds incremental
validity to abilities: A discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10year interval. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 777–786.
Amundson, N.E., Parker, P., & Arthur, M.B. (2002). Merging two worlds: Linking
occupational and organizational career counselling. Australian Journal of
Career Development, 11(3), 26–35.
Arnold, J., & Cohen, L. (2008). The psychology of careers in industrial and
organizational settings: A critical but appreciative analysis. In G. P.
Hodgkinson,& J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 1–44). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bailey, R., & Morley, D. (2006). Towards a model of talent development in physical
education. Sport Education and Society, 11(3), 211–230.
Baldwin, A. Y. (2005). Identification concerns and promises for gifted students of
diverse populations. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 105–114.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resource management: where
do we go from here? Journal of Management, 32(6), 898-925.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Beatty, R. W. (2009). The differentiated workforce:
Transforming talent into strategic impact. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
105
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
Bélanger, J., & Gagné, F. (2006). Estimating the size of the gifted/talent population
from multiple identification criteria. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
30(2), 131163.
Bianco, M. (2010). Strength-based RTI: Conceptualizing a multi-tiered system for
developing gifted potential. Theory Into Practice, 49(4), 323-330.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and
sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy
definition. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 129-136.
Brdar, I., & Kashdan, T. B. (2010). Character strengths and well-being in Croatia: An
empirical investigation of structure and correlates. Journal of Research
inPersonality, 44(1), 151–154.
Brown, S. W., Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Zhang, W., & Chen, C.-H.
(2005) Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students.
Gifted ChildQuarterly, 49(1), 68-79.
Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. New York: The
Free Press.
Callahan, C. M. (2005). Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations.
Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 98-104.
Capaldo, G., Iandoli, L., & Zollo, G. (2006). A situationalist perspective to competence
management. Human Resource Management, 45(3), 429 – 448.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). The psychology of personnel selection.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Collings, D.G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and
research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304-313.
106
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Cooperrider D.L., & Srivasta, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In
R.W. Woodman,& W.A. Pasmore (Eds.), Researchin Organizational Change
and Development (pp. 129-169). Greenwich: JAI Press Inc.
Draganidis, F., & Mentzas, G. (2006). Competency based management: a review of
systems and approaches. Information Management &Computer Security, 14(1),
51-64.
De Vos, A., & Dries, N. (2013). Applying a Talent Management Lens to Career
Management: The Role of Human Capital Composition and Continuity [Special
issue]. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9), 18161831.
Dries, N. (2011). The Meaning of Career Success: Avoiding Reification through a
Closer Inspection of Historical, Cultural and Ideological Contexts. Career
Development International, 16(4),364-384.
Dries, N. (in press). The psychology of talent management: A review and research
agenda [Special issue]. Human Resource Management Review.
Edwards, M. R., & Sproull, J. R. (1985). Team talent assessment: optimizing assessee
visibility and assessment accuracy. Human Resources Planning, 8(3), 157-171.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review,100(3),
363-406.
Feldhusen, J.F. (1994). Talent identification and development in education (TIDE).
Gifted Education International, 10(1), 10-15.
Furnham, A., & Lester, D. (2012). The development of a short measure of character
strength. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(2), 95-101.
107
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
Gagné, F. (1998a). A proposal for subcategories within gifted or talented populations.
Gifted Child Quarterly,42(2): 87-95.
Gagné, F. (1998b). The prevalence of gifted, talented, and multitalented individuals:
Estimates from peer and teacher nominations. In T.C. Friedman,& K.B. Rogers
(Eds.), Talent in context: historical and social perspectives on giftedness (pp.
101-126). Washington, DC: APA.
Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental
theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119-147.
Gagné, F. (2008). Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT 2.0. Retrieved
from http://nswagtc.org.au/images/stories/infocentre/dmgt_2.0_en_overview.pdf
Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High ability studies,
21(2), 81-99.
Gagné, F. (2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted
education. Talent Development & Excellence, 3(1), 3-22.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T. (in press). What is the meaning
of ‘talent’ in the world of work? [Special Issue] Human Resource Management
Review.
Gelens, J., Dries, N., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (in press). The role of perceived
organizational justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: A research
agenda [Special Issue]. Human Resource Management Review.
Greenhaus, J.H., & Callagan, G.A. (2006). Encyclopedia of Career Development.
California: Thousand Oaks Sage Publications.
Guo, K. L. (2003). An assessment tool for developing healthcare managerial skills and
roles. Journal of healthcare management/American College of Healthcare
Executives, 48(6), 367-376.
108
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on
performance and effectiveness. Annual review of psychology, 47(1), 307-338.
Hatcher, R. L., & Rogers, D. T. (2009). Development and validation of a measure for
interpersonal strengths. Psychological Assessment, 21(4), 554-569.
Heller, K. A. (2004). Identification of gifted and talented students. Psychology Science,
46(3), 302323.
Heslin, P.A., Latham, G.P., & Vandewalle, D. (2005). The effect of implicit person
theory on performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 842856.
Huselid, M.A., & Becker, B.E. (2011). Bridging micro and macro domains: Workforce
differentiation and strategic human resource management. Journal of
Management,37(2), 421-428.
Huselid, M. A., Beatty, R. W.,& Becker, B. E. (2005). A players or A positions? The
strategic logic of workforce management. Harvard Business Review, 83(12),
110-117.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in
professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764-792.
Iles, P., Chuai, X., & Preece, D. (2010). Talent management and HRM in multinational
companies in Beijing: Definitions, differences and drivers. Journal of World
Business, 45(2), 179–189.
Jackson, S.E., & Schuler, R.S. (2003). Managing human resources through strategic
partnerships (8th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
Inkson K. (2008). Are humans resources? Career Development International, 13(3),
270–279.
109
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
Jarosewich, T., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Morris, J. (2002). Identifying gifted students using
teacher rating scales: A review of existing instruments. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 20(4), 322-336.
Khapova, S. N., & Arthur M.B. (2010). Interdisciplinary approaches to contemporary
career studies. Human Relations,64(1), 3–17.
Kelchtermans, G. (1993). Teachers and their career story: A biographical perspective on
professional development. In C. Day, J. Calderhead, & P. Denicolo (Eds.),
Research on teacher thinking:Understanding professional development (pp.198220). London: Falmer.
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87(1), 72.
Larson, L.M., & Borgen, F.H. (2002). Convergence of Vocational Interests and
Personality: Examples in an Adolescent Gifted Sample. Journal of Vocational
Behavior,60(1), 91-112.
Lepak, D.P., & Snell, S.A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of
human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review,
24(1), 31-48.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The
relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource
configurations. Journal of Management, 28(4), 517-543.
Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human
Resource Management Review, 16(2), 139154.
Li, H., Lee, D., Pfeiffer, S. I., Kamata, A., & Kumtepe, A. T. (2009). Measurement
invariance of the Gifted Rating Scales–School Form across five cultural groups.
School Psychology Quarterly, 24(3), 186-198.
110
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., Harrington, S., Peterson, C.,
(2007).Character strengths in the United Kingdom: The VIA inventory of
strengths. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(2), 341351.
Littman-Ovadia, H., & Lavy, S. (2012). Character Strengths in Israel. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 28(1), 41-50.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist,
55(1), 137–150.
Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing
psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57–72.
Major, J. T., Johnson, W., & Deary, I. J. (2012). Comparing models of intelligence in
Project TALENT: The VPR model fits better than the CHC and extended Gf–Gc
models. Intelligence, 40, 543-559.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9): 954969.
Mayer, R.E. (2005). The scientific study of giftedness. In R.J. Sternberg,& J.E.
Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 437-448). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Meyers, M. C., van Woerkom M., & Bakker A.B. (2012). The added value of the
positive: A literature review of positive psychology interventions in
organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.694689
McDonnell, A., Lamare, R., Gunnigle, P., & Lavelle, J. (2010). Developing tomorrow’s
leaders-
Evidence
of
global
talent
management
enterprises.Journal of World Business, 45(2), 150-160.
111
in
multinational
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1999). Multipotential abilities and vocational interests in
gifted adolescents: Fact or fiction? International Journal of Psychology, 34(2),
81-93.
Money, K., Hillenbrand, C., & da Camara, N. (2009). Putting positive psychology to
work in organizations. Journal of General Management, 34(3), 21-36.
Oltra, V., & Vivas-López, S. (2013). Boosting organizational learning through teambased talent management: what is the evidence from large Spanish firms?. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9), 1853-1871.
Parker, P. (2002). Working with the intelligent career model. Journal of employment
counseling, 39(2), 83-96.
Periathiruvadi, S.,& Rinn, A. N. (2013). Technology in Gifted Education: A Review of
Best Practices and Empirical Research. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 45(2), 153–169.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). The values in action (VIA) classification of
strengths. In M. Csikszentmihalyi, & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.) A life worth
living: Contributions to positive psychology (pp. 29-48).New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2009). The gifted: Clinical challenges for child psychiatry. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & AdolescentPsychiatry, 48(8), 787–790.
Preckel, F., & Thiemann, H. (2003). Online- versus paper-pencil version of a high
potential intelligence test. Swiss Journal ofPsychology, 62(2), 131-138.
Privette, G. (1983). Peak experience, peak performance, and flow: A comparative
analysis of positive human experiences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45(6), 1361-1368.
Rea, D. W. (2000). Optimal motivation for talent development. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 23(2), 187-216.
112
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Reis, S. M., & Ruban, L.M. (2005). Services and programs for academically talented
students with learning disabilities. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 148-159.
Renzulli, J.S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model
for creative productivity. In R.J. Sternberg,& J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions
of giftedness (pp.53-92). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). Applying gifted education pedagogy to total talent development
for all students. Theory into practice, 44(2), 80-89.
Roberts, L. M., Dutton J. E., Spreitzer, G., Heaphy, E. D., & Quinn, R. E. (2005).
Composing the reflected best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming
extraordinary in work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(7),
12-36.
Roberts, K., Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Managing the global workforce:
Challenges and strategies. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 93106.
Robinson, A., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1998). Giftedness: An exceptionality examined.
Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 117-139.
Robinson, N. M., Zigler, E., & Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Two tails of the normal curve:
Similarities and differences in the study of mental retardation and giftedness.
American Psychologist, 55(12), 1413–1424.
Robinson, C., Fetters, R., Riester, D. & Bracco, A. (2009). The paradox of potential: a
suggestion for guiding talent management discussions in organizations.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(4),413-415.
Ruban, L. M., & Reis, S.M. (2005). Identification and assessment of gifted students
with learning disabilities. Theory into practice, 44(2), 115-124.
113
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
Rust, T., Diessner, R., & Reade, L. (2009). Strengths only or strengths and relative
weaknesses? A preliminary study. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary
and Applied, 143(5), 465-476.
Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, N. E. (1995). Traditional psychometric tests and
proportionate representation: An intervention and program evaluation study.
Psychological Assessment, 7(2), 183-194.
Sanders, C. E., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1995). Does the Defining Issues Test
measure psychological phenomena distinct from verbal ability?: An examination
of Lykken’s query. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 69(3), 498–
504.
Savickas, M. L., Nota, L., Rossier, J., Dauwalder, J. P., Duarte, M. E., Guichard, J.,
Soresi, S., Van Esbroeck, R., & van Vianen A. (2009). Life designing: A
paradigm for career construction in the 21st century. Journal of Vocational
Behavior,75(3), 239-250.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Career anchors revisited: Implications for career development in
the 21st century. The Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 80-88.
Schmidt, D. B., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1998). Validity of assessing
educational-vocational preference dimensions among intellectually talented 13year-olds. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(4), 436-453.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An
introduction [Special issue]. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology
progress. American psychologist, 60(5), 410-421.
Sharma, R., & Bhatnagar, J. (2009). Talent management–competency development: key
to global leadership. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(3), 118-132.
114
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Silzer, R. F., & Church, A.H. (2009). The pearls and perils of identifying potential.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(4), 377-412.
Silzer, R. F., & Church, A.H. (2010). Identifying and assessing high-potential talent:
Current organizational practices. In R. F. Silzer & B.E. Dowell (Eds.), Strategydriven talent management: A leadership imperative (pp. 213-279). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, M. C., & Victorson, J. (2012). Developing a Global Mindset: Cross-Cultural
Challenges and Best Practices for Assessing and Grooming High Potentials for
Global Leadership. People and Strategy, 35(2), 42.
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve
following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review
of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33–66.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Tansley, C. (2011). What do we mean by the term “talent” in talent management?
Industrial and Commercial Training, 43(5), 266 - 274.
Thunnissen, M., Boselie P., & Fruytier, B. (in press). Talent management and the
relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach [Special issue]. Human
Resource Management Review.
Tormala, Z.L., Jia, J.S., & Norton, M.I. (2012). The preference for potential. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4): 567-583.
Tsay, C., & Banaji, M.R. (2011). Naturals and strivers: Preferences and beliefs about
sources of achievement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 460465.
115
Chapter 2. How is talent identified? A multidisciplinary review
Vallerand, R.J., Blanchard, C., Mageau G.A., Koestner R., Ratelle, C.,Leonard, M.,
Gagné, M., & Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions de l'âme: On obsessive and
harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4): 75667.
White, M., Hill, S., McGovern, P., Mills, C., & Smeaton, D. (2003). ‘High
performance’ management practices, working hours and work-life balance.
British Journal of Industrial Relations,41(2), 175 – 195.
Whitty, M. (2002). Possible selves: Exploring the utility of a narrative approach.
Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research,2(3): 213-230.
Wiblen, S., Dery, K., & Grant, D. (2012). Do you see what I see? The role of
technology in talent identification. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources,50(2): 421-438.
Wiblen, S., Grant, D., & Dery, K. (2010). Transitioning to a new HRIS: The reshaping
of human resources and information technology talent. Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research,11(4): 251-267.
Wood, A.M., Linley, P.A., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T.B., & Hurling, R. (2011). Using
personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time:
A longitudinal study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 15-19.
Young, R. A, & Collin, A. (2000). Introduction: framing the future of career. In A.
Collin,& R. A. Young (Eds.), The future of career (pp. 1-17). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zhao, S., & Du, J. (2011). The application of competency-based talent assessment
systems in China. Human Systems Management, 30(1), 23-37.
116
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Chapter 3.
Exploring the talent management literature: A
bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
117
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
118
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Exploring the talent management literature: a bibliometric analysis
(1990-2013)
“(…) la única posibilidad de hacer que nuestra historia sea otra cosa que un
vagabundeo ciego en un laberinto lleno de ruido y de furor, es recomponer el
hilo de Ariadna de las metamorphosis sucesivas de nuestras categorías
mentales para reconstruir su génesis (…)”
André Burguière
[Burguière, A. (1991).Diccionario Akal de ciencias históricas, Madrid: Ediciones Akal, S.A.; p. 51]
The content of this chapter has been accepted as a competitive paper in two different international
conferences. Full details in Appendix B.
119
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
120
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Exploring talent management literature: a bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
3.1 Introduction
The well-known phrase ‘the war for talent’ introduced by a group of McKinsey
consultants in late 1990s (Chambers et al., 1998) sparked off the interest for talent
management (TM) so much so, over the last two decades, it has become an increasingly
popular topic (Chuai, Preece, & Iles, 2008; Höglund, 2012). In fact, TM literature has
experienced substantial growth during this time, especially in recent years (Jones, 2008;
Iles, Preece, & Chuai, 2010) as it is seen more and more as a high-priority issue for
organizations worldwide (Bhatnagar, 2008; Mäkelä, Björkman, & Ehrnrooth, 2010).
Indeed, TM is considered as a key management topic (Hatum, 2010), managing talent is
the top priority in Europe overall (Strack et al., 2011), and finding talented people is the
most important managerial preoccupation for this decade (Guthridge, Komm &
Lawson, 2008).
Despite its growing popularityfew years ago some academics posited that TM was still
in its infancy since there was a lack of clarity regarding its definition, scope and overall
goals (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Garrow & Hirsh, 2008; Lewis & Heckman, 2006). At
present, TM is seen as a discipline that has made some progress towards adolescence
due to the specific academic attention to this topic during the past ten years and,
consequently, the increment of contributions (Collings, Scullion & Vaiman, 2011;
121
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Thunnissen, Boselie & Fruytier, 2013).If TM was a well-established discipline we
would expect it to follow similar patterns to well consolidated disciplines and, thus,
comply with some of the classical bibliometric principles. Indeed, a well-established
field of work would be characterized by a high number of contributions with a sustained
pace in time. Similarly, we would expect these contributions to be published in a given
set of well-known journals to the discipline (Bradford’s Law). As regards authorship we
would expect documents published by authors coming from all over the world, with a
fair representation of countries and cultures. In addition, there is an inverse relationship
between the number of publications and the number of authors producing these
publications (Lotka’s Law), and the major centres of authors’ affiliation would be
academic institutions or Research centers adscribed to the academia. Similarly, a wellestablished discipline is characterized by an increase over time of collaborative
research. Finally, one would expect increased number of citations (number of times a
published article is cited after publication) as the discipline grows and consolidates. So,
how far is TM from these escenarios?
Although Thunnissen et al. (2013) made an attempt to provide a critical review of the
academic literature on TM, there has been no full review study of the scientific
production about it. In this chapter, we aim to offer objective data that describe the
reality of TM researchby carrying out a bibliometric analysis of the existing literature
published in peer-reviewed journals since 1990. Our analysis will contribute to a better
understanding of TM’s academic progress. Indeed, bibliometric techniques are wellestablished and efficient tools for scanning and interpreting the activity, structure and
evolution of a research field (cf. Íñiguez-Rueda et al., 2008; Noguer-Carmona et al.,
2006; Prévot et al., 2010; Ramos-Rodríguez & Ruíz-Navarro, 2004; Wang, Liu, Hong
122
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
& Zhuang, 2013). According to Verbeek, Debackere, Luwel and Zimmermann (2002),
‘bibliometrics’ (usually considered as synonym for ‘scientometrics’ and ‘infometrics),
refers to “the collection, the handling and the analysis of quantitative bibliographic data,
derived from scientific publication” (p. 181). It is important to mention that
bibliometrics has not a homogeneous orientation, i.e., one could differentiate between
descriptive (purely quantitative aspects such as productivity or geographical,
documental and thematic distribution), and evaluative areas (e.g. application of specific
criteria to assess scientific activity) (Íniguez-Rueda et al., 2008). Several recent articles
report the use of bibliometric techniques to study some areas of management research1,
however, the paper at hands is the first one to address this analysis of TM.
The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows. First, we define the objective and
hypotheses of the study. Second, we address the description of the methodology
employed to obtain and analyze the data. Then, the findings are presented and
discussed. Finally, we posit the conclusions and limitations of the study, and an agenda
for future research.
3.2 Objectives and hypotheses
In this study we yield useful information about the nature and evolution of the TM field
by analyzing the contributions to the field at three levels. First, we focus on
productivity, since it is one of the basic dimensions of descriptive bibliometric
studies.We here pay attention to the size, growth and distribution of the scientific
documents published during the frame of time studied. Productivity indicators are
1
Some examples of indexed bibliometric studies are: Gundolf and Filser (2013), Hülle, Kaspar and Möller (2011),
Ramos-Rodríguez andRuíz-Navarro (2004), Samiee and Chabowski (2012), Talukdar (2011), Vogel (2012), and
Wallin (2012).
123
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
fundamentally addressing the quantity, i.e., number of papers published by each author,
by each country, and each institution. In short, productivity shows us who, which
journals, which countriesand institutions are more active in publishing about TM.
Second, we analyze visibility and impact of TM publications. Although, the number of
articles published by an author is one of the most used indicators in bibliometric studies,
one should take in account that quantity is not always synonym of quality2. Indicators
such as impact factor and citations usually measure a publication’s quality.On one hand,
the impact factor is ascribable to the journal and year of publication of a concrete paper.
On the other hand, the quantification and analysis of citations try to reflect the impact of
an article or document on another research and publications. However, both indicators
have limitations and have caused controversy amongst researchers. This will be
addressed in section 3.4.2.Third, we analyzecollaborationwithin TM research
throughout a long period of time (i.e., the level of co-authorship in the studies analyzed
and the average signatures per paper). According to Peters (1991) collaboration is the
unanimous pattern in nowadays research.
Hence, as specific objectives we can highlight these ones:
a. To describe the size of TM research, its growth and distribution starting 1990.
b. To analyze authors’ productivity
c. To rank journals, centres (i.e., academic institutions or companies), and
countries according to their contribution to the overall TM scientific production.
d. To get to know the type of centres that publishes about TM.
e. To analyzepublications’ impact.
f. To describe the level of collaboration on TM research
2
‘Quality’ can refer both to quality of the journal in which the paper is published, and quality of the article itself
(Noguer-Carmona et al., 2006)
124
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Our hypotheses are the following:
Referring production:
Hypothesis 1:
Hypothesis 6:
The number of documents published is going to grow during the
period 1990-2013.
The increment in publications is going to be particularly intense
within the last decade.
Since TM is considered an incipient discipline, it is going to be a
lot of dispersion when talking about journals.
There is going to be an inverse relation between the number of
publications and the number of authors producing these
publications (following Lotka’s Law).
Much of the work on TM is going to be from United States,
followed by other English speaking countries.
Affiliations are expected largely to be non-academic.
Hypothesis 7:
Little work on TM is going to be from Spanish authors.
Hypothesis 2:
Hypothesis 3:
Hypothesis 4:
Hypothesis 5:
As regards impact and visibility:
Hypothesis 8:
The number of documents published in journals with impact factor
has grown during the last decade.
Hypothesis 9:
It can be established an association between impact factor and
citations according to number of authors.
Concerning collaboration:
Hypothesis 10:
Hypothesis 11:
Hypothesis 12:
Hypothesis 13:
Hypothesis 14:
Hypothesis 15:
Hypothesis 16:
Collaboration is frequent, as it is the norm among the research
community.
Collaboration (i.e., co-authorship) increases over time.
International collaboration has not always being present in TM
research, and it is quite recent in time.
Collaboration within the same organization (i.e., due to author’s
proximity) will be the rule in TM research.
The number of Spanish collaborations is going to grow during the
last decade.
Spanish coauthors are going to ocupy secondary positions
The number of Spanish collaborations is going to grow during the
last decade.
evagg
The results of this study will allow us to both analyze the structure of the TM research
(e.g., most prominent authors, leading journals, countries and institutions involved), and
to define its boundaries and trends. Our study will allow us to reveal underlying patterns
125
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
in scientific outputs and academic collaborations and may serve as an alternative and
innovative way of revealing global research trends in TM.
3.3Methodology
This bibliometric analysis takes scientific articles written in English about TM and
published in peer-reviewed journals from 1990 onwards as the unit of analysis. We
followed a sequential three-step approach so as to establish and analyse the final
number of included peer-reviewed articles in the study.
Step 1: Data retrieval
We performed series of searches on Talent Management in the Social Sciences Citation
Index (SSCI)—accessed through the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters)—and Scopus
(Elsevier) databases to retrieve the material of study for the present work.
More specifically, we conducted searches using ‘talent’ and ‘management’ as
keywords, and located publications that contained these searching words in their titles,
abstracts (or topic) or keywords. In order to be as inclusive as possible and analyze the
evolution of TM throughout time,the span of time considered was from 1990 (seven
years before the dawn of the ‘war for talent’) until May of 2013. We consider that more
than 20 years can give a proper picture of TM evolution.
In order to assure all articles were compared using the same standards, we limited the
retrieved articles to only those published in English, in peer-reviewed journals of Social
Sciences disciplines,and those that have the full text available. So, interviews, reports,
126
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
review of books, conference proceedings, editorials or guest editor’s notes, chapter of
books, reply to other articles and documents published by a corporation as author, were
not included. We also rejected those articles with the author’s name not available. It
should be say that we performed the same searches in two different periods of time in
order to have the database as updated as possible. For that reason, we also included
articles in press. In Table 3.1 we detail the search equations executed and the number of
documents obtained from each search in each period of time.
Table 3.1
Searches executed and number of documents obtained
Database
Search executed
Date 1st
search
Number
of results
Date
2nd
search
Number
of
results
Web of Science
(WoS)
Title = “talent” AND “management”
27/03/13
62
10/05/13
63
Topic = “talent” AND “management”
30/03/13
427
10/05/13
470
Title = “talent” AND “management”
30/03/13
93
12/05/13
103
Keywords = "talent" AND "management"
30/03/13
103
12/05/13
116
Abstract = "talent" AND "management"
30/03/13
455
12/05/13
490
Scopus
As mentioned by Pinto, Escalona-Fernández and Pulgarín (2013) one major difficulty of
trying to make the searches in WoS and Scopus as similar to each other as possible was
the fact that each database have their own specific query language and document
structure. For that reason, in WoS we could make searches by topic and title, meanwhile
in Scopus we could be more specific and do the searches by title, abstract and
keywords. However, we verify that the results were as little biased as possible by
limiting and refining the searches following the same criteria regardless the construction
of the records in each database (see Table 3.2).
127
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Table 3.2
Search criteria established in each database
Web of Science (WoS)
Scopus
Timespan = 1990-2013
From 1990-2013
Language = English
Language = English
Document type = Peer-reviewed articles
Type of documents = Articles + Articles in press
Search Domain = Social Sciences
Subject area = Social Sciences & Humanities
Step 2: Refinement of the results
The lists of articles retrieved from each search were exported to Microsoft Excel 2011
(version 14.3.4). According to Escalona, Lagar and Pulgarín (2010) a major overlap
between WoS and Scopus databases was expected, so once all duplicates were
removeda total of 735 publications were selected for the period 1990-2013.
In order to obtain maximum information of each publication, and consequently do a
better exploitation of its data (key variables), articles’ full text was obtained by one of
these means: (a) directly downloading them from the database (i.e., when our university
subscription allow that); (b) asking the library to acquire the article3; (3) directly asking
the author4. However, 32 papers out of these 735 were impossible to acquire or find, so,
the final number of documents analyzed in this study is 703.
Step 3: Analysis of the publications
The data from those 703 documents was introduced in an excel sheet. The main reason
for using Microsoft Excel software, instead other software such as, Microsoft Access,
was the possibility to work withpivot tables. Pivot tables are great tools for sorting,
3
We need to explicitly thank the help from the librarians at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) since they
were of critical help in order to acquire more than 100 documents from other Spanish and foreign libraries.
4
Few were the authors contacted and all of them respond positively to our demand. We are grateful to Prof. Anthony
McDonnell to send us all the articles from the special issue in which he was a guest editor, and Jonathan M. Graham,
regional managing partner at Heidrick & Struggles, to send us his paper.
128
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
counting and summarizing a great amount of data in a worksheet or database file.
Indeed, they are dynamic tools that allow you to quickly re-sort the data and look at it
from a totally different perspective. In addition, working directly in Microsoft Excel
simplified the creation of figures and tables once the data was sorted.
We codified each item (i.e., the information in or about each publication or unit of
analysis) according to 42 different fields. In Table 3.3 are detailed not only the fields we
had created but the way we had operationalized them.
Table 3.3
Database’s fields and its operationalization
Column Name
How it was operationalized (the way data is treated in Excel)
Article ID
Correlatives numbers where each number identifies one publication
(number)
Number of authors
Total number of authors or signatures in a publication (text)
Author’s position in the article
A single number that indicates the ordinal position of the author in
the publication (text)
Family Name
Surname of one author (text)
Name
Name of one author (text)
Author
This field results from concatenate the ‘Family name’ and the
‘Name’ fields (formula)
Affiliation(University or Company)
The center as to which is ascribed the author. In case, no affiliation
appeared we decided to leave the cell empty and, after, called these
ones as “non-affiliated”(text)
Extra information on affiliation (e.g.
school)
Extra information referring to the authors’ affiliation or position. For
example, if he/she belongs to a research center, or if he/she is dean,
visiting professor, chief, owner, founder,or vice-president. We copied
the information that was detailed in the article about the author (text)
Country
Name of the country (text)
E-mail / Web
E-mail or web address in case it was facilitated (text)
Co-authored?
YES or NO (text)
International collaboration
YES or NO (text)
Collaborations within the same institution
YES or NO (text)
Collaborations with Spanish institutions
YES or NO (text)
Year
Year of the publication (treated as text)
Title
Title of the document (text)
Journal Title
Journal name (text)
129
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Table 3.3 (Continued)
Column Name
How it was operationalized (the way data is treated in Excel)
IF Data?
YES or NO (text)
Vol.
Volume of the journal (text)
Issue
Issue of the journal (text)
Month_Day
Month or Day of publishing (text)
Impact Factor
Number of IF obtained from the Journal Citation Report (Thomson
Reuters) of the publication year. It should be said that we were only
able to find JCR lists from 1997 to 2011 (number)
Initial page
Initial page of the document (number)
Final page
Initial page of the document (number)
Pages
Number of pages of the document (formula)
References
Number of references the paper has (number)
Citations in Google Scholar (GS)
Number of citations that the paper has in GS (number)
Date of search in GS
The date when the number of citations was retrieved (date)
Citations in Scopus
Number of citations that the paper has in Scopus (number)
Date of search in Scopus
The date when the number of citations was retrieved (date)
Citations in WoS
Number of citations that the paper has in WoS (number)
Date of search in WoS
The date when the number of citations was retrieved (date)
Abstract
Abstract of the document (text)
Keyword 1
Keyword defined in first place (text)
Keyword 2
Keyword defined in second place (text)
Keyword 3
Keyword defined in third place (text)
Keyword 4
Keyword defined in fourth place (text)
Keyword 5
Keyword defined in fifth place (text)
a
Keyword 6
Keyword defined in sixth place (text)
Special issue on TM?
YES or NO (text)
Type of article
Empirical, Theoretical or Teaching case (text)
Methodology
Qualitative, Quantitative or Mixed (text)
Notes:
a
We decided to only include the first 6 keywords defined by the authors of the publication. It should be noted that
only less tan 10% of them have more.
b
The shaded area correspond to those fields that are already tabulated in our database but that are not going to be
analyzed in this study, since they are going to help us in forthcoming content analysis.
As one could have noticed from the detailed table, we introduced each article as many
times as number of authors had, i.e., if a paper was written by three authors we are
going to have three rows for this publication. In these three rows the only fields that are
going to be different are those related to the author information (Authors’ position in the
article, Family name, Name, Author, Affiliation and Extra information on affiliation).
This way of classify the information will allow us to analyze the data in more depth.
130
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Once we had entered all the data, we then proceeded to analyze it at those three levels
mentioned above (productivity, impact and visibility, and collaboration), using adequate
commands included in the Excel software.
3.4 Results
As mentioned before, we analyzed our database at three levels: productivity, impact and
visibility and collaboration. These levels of analysis are going to define the structure of
this section. In Table 3.4 we summarize the general data of the study.
Table 3.4
General data of the bibliometric study
Number of documents analyzed
703
Number of journals
353
Number of authorsa
1276
Number of affiliations
710
Type of affiliation
Academic
465
Non-academic
245
Note: a Auhors’ identification has been done taking into account the
different ways of signatures that can identify the same author. So we
had tabulated the different signatures of the same author as just one
way (the criteria was to opt for adopting the most complete form of
his/her signature).
3.4.1 Productivity
Productivity indicators in bibliometric analysis pretend to show the size, growth and
distribution of the scientific documents published. So, they fundamentally measured the
quantity.
3.4.1.1 Time evolution of the scientific production
131
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
As we mentioned above, we worked with 703 papers about TM published in the period
1990-2013. Throughout this time,scientific production on TM enjoyed a continuous
growth. Indeed, scientific production on TM has been multiplied by over 15 times in the
last twenty years, and by 7 times in the last 8 years5 (for further details, see Appendix
A, Section A.2, p. 198).
The development of TM research can be divided into three stages (see Figure 3.1): (a)
the initial development stage (1990-2003). In this stage, the related research advanced
very slowly, with the average annual number of papers being only 8,84. The average
annual growth rate within this period is 7.69 documents per year. (b) The rapid
development stage (2004-2008). Here, the annual rate of papers reached 38.4. The
average annual growth rate within this period is 103.08 documents per year. (c) The
plateau development stage (2009-2012). In this stage, the numbers of papers, although
with some fluctuations, maintain high levels (345 documents in 5 years). The annual
rate of papers reached 86.4, and the average annual growth rate within this period is
12.09 documents per year. In summary: the evidence tells that TM has been a hot
research topic within the last 8 years, and that it has a growing tendency so far, it is
developing. Although, 2011 had been the most prolific year with 97 documents
(13.80% of the total documents published during the period studied), presumably 2013
is going to be the most prolific year since in only 5 months there are 51 documents
published (to date, two publications per month more than in 2011).
5
2012 is the final year considered to make these affirmations, since it is the last complete year with data.
132
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Figure 3.1
Volume of TM publications from 1990 to 2013
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Note: In 2013 the number of documents subsumesnot only those published between January and May (46 articles),
but also those articles that appear as ‘in press’ (5 documents).
3.4.1.2 Dispersion of the scientific literature
The number of journals publishing TM related research increased from 6 in 1990 to 62
in 2012. A total of 703 articles were retrieved distributed among a total of 353 journals,
for an average of 1.99 papers per journal. Table3.5 shows the distribution of journals
and papers published within the period studied. Before 2001, i.e., before the publication
of Michaels, Handfield-Jones and Axelrod’s book publication (the one that provoked a
great diffusion of their previous research on the ‘war for talent’), the number of
documents practically corresponds to the number of journals.
Table 3.5
133
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Distribution of publications among years
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013a
Number of
Different
Journals
6
2
6
5
3
4
8
9
5
9
9
13
11
9
9
25
20
31
50
46
78
65
62
37
Number
Ratio
of
Journals/Documentb
documents
6
1
2
1
8
0.75
5
1
3
1
4
1
8
1
9
1
6
0.83
10
0.90
11
0.82
14
0.93
17
0.65
12
0.75
13
0.69
31
0.81
23
0.87
45
0.69
80
0.63
62
0.74
94
0.83
97
0.67
92
0.67
51
0.73
Note: a As in previous tables, totals in 2013 correspond to already
published and “in press” articles.bIn this column, 1 represents the
maximum degree of dispersion.
As Table 3.5 shows there is a steady increase in the number of publications throughout
the period studied (1990-2013), although the annual rate of growth varies from period to
period as we have seen above (7.69% for the initial development stage; 103.08% for the
rapid development stage, and 12.09% for the plateau development stage). So, the
volume of documents progressively increased during the period studied as Prince (1963)
concluded from his seminal work: Little Science, Big Science.
134
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Referring to the number of journals, it also progressively increases over time (for
further details, see Appendix A, Section A.3, pp. 199-212). However, we observed how
during the first years of the period studied, a maximum grade of dispersion existed (i.e.,
each document was published in a different journal). As time goes by, we see how it is
slightly dimishing this dispersion although it is still very high (0.73 in 2013). Probably
this wide variety of journals (also noted by Thunnissen et al., 2013) in the last eight
years is due to the ‘fight’ for consolidating TM as a field of research from a wide
audience. It is worthy to note that despite the great variety of journals they can be
subsumed under three wide areas: HRM, Knowledge Management, and Health
Management.
However, the documents published do not follow an equal distribution among the
journals. According to the Bradford’s Law (also known as Bradford’s law of scattering
or Bradford distribution), in a specific scientific field or topic, the majority of the
contributions published will be found in a small amount of journals, i.e., the more
particularly devoted to the subject also known as the core or first zone (Bradford, 1948).
From this core zone, if we want to retrieve the same amount of documents we will need
a higher number of journals, and so on (this progression is going to be geometrical). In
short, this law reveals a pattern of how literature about a specific topic is distributed in
journals, and it tells that it would be enough to identify “the core publications” for that
field in order to have a big picture of the discipline since very rarely will researchers
need to go outside that set. According to Figure 3.2, a third of the documents in TM
research are published in less than 5% of the journals, (i.e., 235 documents were
retrieved from 16 journals), other third of documents are published in 114 journals (with
135
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
a total of 464 documents), and the remaining third of documents are published in 239
journals.
Figure 3.2
Concentration curve of documents according to journals
Following Bradford’s law, if after ranking the results in decreasing order with the most
prolific journal given rank 1, we can arbitrarly select a core of journals (j). The number
of articles found in the core j journals is denoted as a, and this first grouping will be
called Zone 0. Therefore, in our case, we consider j = 16, and a = 235, since 16 journals
are the ones that concentrates the 33% of the total publications. We should divide the
remaining data into “Bradford Zones” such that each zone contains a articles (see, Table
3.6).
136
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Table 3.6
Bradford’s zones for TM literature distribution
Zone
(a = 235 articles)
0
1
2
Number of
journals
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
1
5
12
19
37
31
233
Cumulative
of journals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
11
15
16
5
17
36
73
104
233
Number of
articles
58
26
22
21
16
13
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
Total of
Articles
58
26
22
21
16
13
12
9
24
28
6
25
48
57
74
31
233
Cumulative
or articles
58
84
106
127
143
156
168
177
201
229
235
25
73
130
204
235
233
Note:Since the total number of documents is 703, which is an odd number, the third zone has only 233 instead 235.
We decided to group journals by dividing in thirds the total number of contributions (i.e., each zone represents
approximately, the 33% of the total amount of documents).
According to Bradford’s law, there is some constant (k, also known as Bradford
multiplier) such that zth zone containing a articles consists of kzj journals6. Another
view of the same phenomenon is: k0:k1:k2… kz. In the present case, Zone 0 contains 16
journals, Zone 1 contains 104 journals, and Zone 2 contains 233. So, the proportion is
16:104:233 = 1:6.5:14.56. Therefore, it is difficult to establish k that is the multiplier
that allows to exactly finding the same amount of journals in each zone. So, this
distribution does not fit exactly with the suggested by Bradford, since the theoretical
number of journals for Zone 2 should be 676 (kzj = 6.5^2*16) instead of 233.However,
the number of journals needed to provide multiples of the core zone articles quickly
grows to very large numbers, as a classic example of the scattering effect. There is a
great dispersion as it was expected due to the incipient condition of TM.
6
cf. http://people.lis.illinois.edu/~jdownie/biblio/bradford.html
137
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Despite this great dispersion, three are the journals responsible for the 15% of the total
number of publications. These are: Harvard Business Review, The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, and T and D (see, Table 3.7). Indeed, Harvard
Business Review is responsible for the publication of 8.25 % (23 documents) of the total
amount of documents on TM. Moreover, it is the only journal that has more than 3
papers published from 1990 to 1998 when TM had not even emerged as a hot topic, and
more than 10 papers in each of the other periods of time analyzed. So, it is undeniable
Harvard Business Reviewleadership in TM research. Apart from this one, the preferred
journals for publishing about TM are (see Table 3.7):The International Journal of
Human Resource Management (with 26 documents), T and D (with 22 documents),
Industrial and Commercial Training (with 21 documents), Human Resource
Management Digest (with 16 documents), Journal of World Business (with 13
documents) and Human Resource management (with 12 documents).As expected from
the previous mentioned, the second, third and fourth most prolific journals started to
publish about TM from 2004 onwards, being the last period (2009-2013) the most
prolific one for all of them. Sometimes top positions are explained by the publication of
special issues (e.g., a recent special issue on TM with 8 articles can explain the second
position ofThe International Journal of Human Resource Management). In summary,
TM literature is basically built on the traditions and approaches of the HRM field (5 out
of the top ten journals belong to this field). In addition, in recent years conceptual
journals within this field (e.g., Human Resource Management Review) have published
theoretical articles on the topic in order to improve TM theoretical foundations.
138
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Table 3.7
Ranking of journals ordered by productivity (n 3)
Journal
Harvard Business Review
The International Journal of Human
Resource Management
T and D
Industrial and Commercial Training
Human Resource Management International
Digest
Journal of World Business
Human Resource Management
Public Personnel Management
Journal of Management Development
Human Resource Management Review
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources
Organization Development Journal
International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management
Global Business and Organizational
Excellence
European Journal of International
Management
MIT Sloan Management Review
The Journal of medical practice
management
Journal of Business Strategy
Healthcare financial management
Asia Pacific Business Review
African Journal of Business Management
Research Technology Management
Psychologist-Manager Journal
Personnel Review
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Journal of Knowledge Management
Journal of International Management
Journal of Financial Economics
Human Resource Management Journal
European Management Journal
Business Horizons
Academy of Management Journal
Academic Medicine
Transportation Journal
Training & Development
Strategy and Leadership
Sport Management Review
Small Business Economics
Scandinavian Journal of Management
Organizational Dynamics
McKinsey Quarterly
Management Decision
Journal of Organizational Excellence
Journal of Management
Journal of Business Ethics
International Journal of Technology
Management
Number
of
%
papers
58
8.25
8.25
1990
1998
4
1999
2003
15
2004
2008
28
2009
2013
11
Cumulative
%
26
22
21
3.70
3.13
2.99
11.95
15.08
18.07
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
9
5
23
13
16
16
13
12
9
8
8
8
7
2.28
1.85
1.71
1.28
1.14
1.14
1.14
1
20.34
22.19
23.90
25.18
26.32
27.45
28.59
29.59
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
6
4
3
0
7
16
12
7
0
4
4
7
0
7
1
30.58
0
0
6
1
7
1
31.58
0
0
2
5
7
6
1
0.85
32.57
33.43
0
0
0
0
0
4
7
2
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
34.14
34.85
35.56
36.27
36.98
37.55
38.12
38.69
39.26
39.83
40.40
40.97
41.54
42.11
42.67
43.24
43.81
44.24
44.67
45.09
45.52
45.95
46.37
46.80
47.23
47.65
48.08
48.51
48.93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
3
1
3
0
2
2
4
4
3
5
2
4
4
2
3
3
3
4
2
3
0
2
2
0
1
2
2
3
2
0
2
0
3
1
3
0.43
49.36
1
0
2
0
139
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Table 3.7 (Continued)
Number
of
papers
Journal
Innovation: Management, Policy and
Practice
Employee Relations
Cross Cultural Management
Benefits Quarterly
Asian Social Science
Advances in Developing Human Resources
3
3
3
3
3
3
%
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
Cumulative
%
1990
1998
1999
2003
2004
2008
2009
2013
49.79
50.21
50.64
51.07
51.49
51.92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
1
1
3
1
3
3
3.4.1.3 Authors’ productivity
In TM a small group of authors contribute to a significant number of publications which does not lead to a significant share of the total number of publications (see, Table
3.8). Indeed, 1,173 authors have a single paper and 76 have two, and only one author
has 10 published papers.
Table 3.8
Authors’ productivity
Number of
documents
Number of
authors
Cumulative of
authors
1
1173
91.93%
2
76
5.96%
3
16
1.25%
4
7
0.55%
5
1
0.08%
6
2
0.16%
7
0
0.00%
8
0
0.00%
9
0
0.00%
10
1
0.08%
Total
1276
100%
The distribution seems to follow a pyramidal pattern: on one hand, top of the pyramid,
few authors publish lots of articles about TM, and on the other hand, base of the
140
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
pyramid, a great amount of authors publish few articles. According to Lotka’s law7, one
of the three-bibliometric power laws, the total number of authors (y) in a given subject,
each producing x publications, is inversely proportional to some exponential function n
of x.After examining the validy of Lotka’s law, we can conclude that this generalized
inverse square law is not applicable to talent management literature, considering K-S
statistics at 1% level of significance. However, Lotka’s law holds when considering K-S
statistic at 0.1% level of significance. Further details will be found in Appendix A
(Section A.4, pp. 213-219). Probably, this non-fitting of Lotka’s Law of scientific
productivity can be due to the fact that there is a huge difference in levels of production
of number of authors, specifically, between the first one and the others. Indeed, Lotka’s
law argues that 60,8% out of all the authors publish only one article, 15.2% publish two,
6.8% publish three, and so on, following the ratio
ଵ
௡మ
. In the present case, the 91.93% of
the literature production on TM is devoted to only one author, which means that there is
only 8.07% left of production to be distributed ‘somehow proportionately’ among the
other levels 8 . In short, TM field is still very young to accomplish with one of the
classical laws of bibliometrics at usual levels of significance.
7
Lotka’s Law describes the publication frequency distribution in a given subject or field. It is summarized by the
equation: ܽ௡ ൌ ܽଵ Τ݊ଶ where ܽ௡ is the number of authors publishing n papers, ܽଵ the number of authors publishing
one paper, and n= 1, 2, 3, … In 1926, Alfred J. Lotka analyzed scientific production in order to identify those great
contributors to the development of science. He developed a mathematical model from data of two samples [Chemical
Abstract (1907-196) and Auerbach Geschichtstafeln der Physic (until 1900)] and discovered that there was an inverse
relation between the number of publications in a field and the number of authors producing these publications. In
fact, he named his model the ‘inverse square law’ since it indicated that there was a concentration of articles among a
few authors, while the remaining articles were distributed among a great amount of authors. He observed that the
number of authors making n publication contributions is about 1/n2of those making one, and the proportion of all
contributors that make a one one contribution is about 60%. Since then, many studies have investigated the validity
of Lotka’s Law in different academic disciplines and lots of contradictory results have been found. This made
researchers wonder if other kind of distributions could have best fit, which lead to the introduction of different
statistical models (cf. Urbizagástegui, 2005). A consensus has been reached in admitting that the exponent value of
Lotka law (n) is variable, so the constant (C) will also be different for each distribution of authors (cf. Martín, Pestana
& Pulgarín, 2008; Urbizagástegui, 2005). Since the introduction of statistics tests to reinforce the value of the
analysis of distributions, the test of Kolmogorov-Smirnov is assumed as the most appropriate non-parametric test for
this kind of analysis since it does not distort the data, mainly of the mostprolific authors (Martín et al., 2008).
8
In 2009, Talukdar tested the Lotka’s Law of scientific productivity in business ethics using all research publications
in two leading journals since their respective launch years to a recent date. This author presented data about how the
generalized Lotka’s Law holds not only in natural science disciplines but also in various social science areas. This
study findings present strong evidence that the so-called Generalized Lotka’s Law of scientific productivity pattern
141
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
In general, productivity was low (an average of 1.12 papers/author). Only 2.12% of the
authors published more than 2 papers, and just 0.86% of the authors published more
than 4 articles. Table 3.9 lists the authors with the greatest scientific production,
together with the site of their affiliation9. The top four authors are: H. Scullion with 10
articles, J. Bhatnagar andD. G. Collings with 6 articles, and V. Vaiman with 5 articles.
Except J. Bhatnagar all of them belong to academia. In addition, if we check the years
of their publications we will see that they correspond to the period 2005-2013. In short,
a small group of authors, mainly from academia, contribute to a significant recent
number of papers (although, it only means the 1.89% of the amount of documents).
Morevoer, only 23 authors (1.8%) are from Spanish and published 11 articles on TM. It
can be said that Spanish contribution to TM literature is almost 0.9% and that is recent
(particularly in 2010). Among them the norm is to publish one article. To date, the most
prolific Spanish author is S. Vivas-López from University of Valencia, who had
published two articles on TM. Spanish scientific production concentrates from 2009 to
present, being 2010 and beginning 2013 the most prolific time with 3 articles.
exists in business ethics discipline (being the estimated value of the exponent 2,59, not 2 as proposed by Lotka). This
positive result surprised the author given the “relatively young, evolving nature of this academic discipline” (p. 147).
So, why does not hold in TM? We observed that the ratio of number of distinct authors per number of papers
published in business ethics is about 1,09, whilst in TM discipline is almost doubled (1,81). This fact, which also
indicates the great dispersion of authors in TM discipline (i.e., lots of papers of one author), corroborates our previous
reasoning for the non-fit of Lotka’s Law in TM literature: the inmaturity of TM as a research discipline.
9
It should be noticed that when tabulating the data we made sure of writing the author name equal each time, i.e., we
detected that sometimes some authors use different forms of signature (e.g. D. Collings and D. G. Collings) and we
just decided to choose the most complete signature to identify that author, which usually coincide with the most
recently used (following with the previous example, we tabulated D. G. Collings).
142
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Table 3.9
Top 10 most productive authors(n >3)
Author
Affiliation
National University of Ireland
(NUI)
Management Development
Bhatnagar, J.
Institute
National University of Ireland
Collings, D. G.
(NUI)
Dublin City University
FH Joanneum
Vaiman, V.
Reykjavik University
Coulson-Thomas, C. Adaptation Ltd
University of Greenwich
KU Leuven
Dries, N.
American Society for Training &
Galagan, P.
Development (ASTD)
California State University
Groves, K. S.
Pepperdine University
Leeds Metropolitan University
Iles, P.
University of Salford
University of Newcastle
McDonnell, A.
University of South Australia
Villanova University
Stumpf, S. A.
Aalto University
Björkman, I.
Hanken School of Economics
University of Pennsylvania
Cappelli, P.
Belzona Polymerics Ltd
Chuai, X.
University of Teesside
Claremont Graduate University
Conger, J. A.
London Business School
University of Souther California
Villanova University
Doh, J. P.
Pennsylvania State University
Farndale, E.
Tilburg University
Harvard University
Groysberg, B.
Accenture
Harris, J. G.
Northeastern University
Lieb, R. C.
Changchun University of Science
Liu, Y.
and Technology
International Business Machines
Corporation (IBM)
Renmin University of China
University of Teesside
Preece, D.
University of Birmingham
Rhodes, C.
Lancaster University Management
Sparrow, P.
School (LUMS)
Manchester Business School
Villanova University
Tymon Jr., W. G.
Loyola Marymount University
Vance, C. M.
University of Limerick
Whelan, E.
Scullion, H.
143
Number
of articles
%
Cumulative
%
10
0.7003
0.7003
6
0.4202
1.1204
6
0.4202
1.5406
5
0.3501
1.8908
4
0.2801
2.1709
4
0.2801
2.4510
4
0.2801
2.7311
4
0.2801
3.0112
4
0.2801
3.2913
4
0.2801
3.5714
4
0.2801
3.8515
3
0.2101
4.0616
3
0.2101
4.2717
3
0.2101
4.4818
3
0.2101
4.6919
3
0.2101
4.9020
3
0.2101
5.1120
3
3
3
0.2101
0.2101
0.2101
5.3221
5.5322
5.7423
3
0.2101
5.9524
3
3
0.2101
0.2101
6.1625
6.3725
3
0.2101
6.5826
3
3
3
0.2101
0.2101
0.2101
6.7927
7.0028
7.2129
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
3.4.1.4 Institutional distribution of publications
In contrast with other studies (e.g. Wang et al., 2013) where the contribution of
different countries was estimated by the location of the affiliated institutions of at least
one author, in this study we have taken into account the affiliation of all authors in each
paper10. As shown in Table 4.9 the most productive institution was Harvard University
with 26 papers, followed by the National University of Ireland (NUI) with 17 articles,
the International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) with 16, Accenture with 15,
and McKinsey & Company with 14 publications. It is interesting to see how among the
top 5 institutions more than half are companies or consultancies. So, the common
saying that TM literature is mainly practitioner oriented is making evident in here.
Looking a little bit close among this top 2 academic institutions, although Harvard
University has a long tradition in TM research (the first article published was in 1992
and the last one in 2013), The National University of Ireland (NUI) has a better ratio of
publications per year (3.4 meanwhile the ratio for Harvard University is 2.36). In fact,
the two most prolific academics (H. Scullion and D. G. Collings) are from the National
University of Ireland. We could posit that this university, along with Harvard
University, is leading TM research.
The role of McKinsey & Company is unquestionable in TM research since it was a
report made from consultants from this company the one that ignited a general
worldwide interest for this topic. However, one would expect that this company have a
better position in the rank. It is surprising that this company occupies the fifth position
after Accenture and IBM. It is worthy to note that from 2009 onwards, the Accenture
Institute for High Performance Business is paying great attention to the TM phenomena.
10
If an author has more than one affiliation we considered all of them to do the analysis of centers. However, if some
of them were from the same country, in the country analysis we deleted duplicates. It is should be said that 13
documents were written by freelance writers, so we coded them as ‘Not affiliated’.
144
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Table 3.10
Top 10 most productive institutions
Year of
Number of
publication publications
26
1992
1
2002
1
2003
4
2004
1
2005
2
2006
3
2007
3
2008
8
2012
2
2013
1
National University of Ireland (NUI)
17
2009
1
2010
7
2011
3
2012
2
2013
4
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
16
2006
1
2008
3
2011
12
Accenture
15
2009
3
2010
7
2011
4
2012
1
Mckinsey & Company
14
2002
3
2008
8
2013
3
Monash University
11
2001
3
2009
3
2010
3
2011
1
2012
1
University of Limerick
10
2007
1
2010
4
2011
4
2012
1
Villanova University
10
2010
4
2011
6
Deloitte Consulting LLP
10
2000
1
2005
1
2006
3
2007
2
2008
1
2011
2
Affiliation
Harvard University
145
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Table 3.10 (Continued)
Year of
Number of
publication publications
Affiliation
Cornell University
2000
2005
2007
2012
9
2
4
1
2
3.4.1.5 Geographic distribution of publications
TM research is scattered around the world, concretely in 49 countries (further details in
Appendix A, Section A.5, p.220), as shown in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3
Geographic distribution of number of publications about TM (1990-2013)
Note: This map was made by means of this web sitehttp://www.indexmundi.com/map/creator/
Figure 3.4 shows a more detailed picture of this geographic distribution of TM research.
United States headed the productivity rankings with 714 articles (48.11% of the total
scientific production on TM), followed by United Kingdom with 194 (13.07%),
Australia with 73 (4.92%) and Canada with 57 (3.84%). So, it is a fact the dominance of
146
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
English speaking countries in TM literature as usually mentioned in the literature (cf.
Collings et al., 2011; Festing, Schaver & Scullion, 2013; Thunnissen et al., 2013).
Figure 3.4
Percentual distribution of publications per country
In order to make this data comparable, we adjusted it by country’s population and
GDP11. We know that there could be other proxies to do that but we considered these
two effective ones. Figure 3.5 shows the complete distribution of scientific publication
on TM taking into account population of the country and GDP per capita. It should be
said that there is no clear pattern of distribution if we look at this data globally. Since
these 49 countries are very different one from each other we decided to analyze the data
according to different GDP sections.
11
Data of GDP per capita of each country was retrieved from the World Economic Outlook Database (April, 2013) of
the International Monetary Fund. Population data was obtained from the Population and vital statistics report
(Statisticals papers, series A, Vol. LXV, January 2013) of the United Nations.
147
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Figure 3.5
Scientific production on TM by country and GDP per capita
In Figures 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8, we show how cientific production on TM is distributed
reflecting different ranges of GDP per capita in order to make countries more
comparable (further details in Appendix A, Section A.6, pp.221-222). In the group of
countries with lower GDP per capita, Croatia comes up as the most prolific country.
Taking a closer look at those countries within the medium GDP section, it is interesting
to note that Iceland appears as one of the most prolific, probably due to the population
adjustment (in fact, Iceland only has published 4 papers). Germany, despite being the
richer one, is not shown as productive (21 papers), as Belgium (17 papers), Finland (18
papers) or United Kingdom (194 papers).
148
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Figure 3.6
TM research on countries with low levels of GDP (1,710 – 19,487)
Figure 3.7
TM research on countries with medium levels of GDP (20,328 – 39,456)
Figure 3.8
TM research on countries with high levels of GDP (40,420 – 60,688)
149
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Finally, within the last GDP section of countries, we find Ireland as the most productive
country (32 articles) despite being one of the poorest of this group. Followed by
Australia (73 documents), Singapore (11 documents) and United States (714
documents). Norway is the more developed country but, in fact, the less productive one
(1 document). What this figure tell us is that, although United States appears to be the
leading unquestionable country, if we take into account variables as population and
GDP per inhabitant, some other countries excel, such as, Ireland, Australia or
Singapore.
When describing scientific production on TM per countries, it is also interesting to
analyze each country contribution according to their affiliations. Figure 3.9 represents
the contribution of those different 49 countries taking into accountthe affiliations (i.e., if
the article was written by an academic or non-academic -practitioner or consultant-).
Further details and concrete data can be found in Appendix A, Section A.7, p.223.
Figure 3.9
Scientific production and nature of affiliation
150
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
From this figure we can posit that in United States the contributions from Nonacademic institutions are more (170 documents) than those from the academy (162
documents). We can also observe how in United Kingdom academic contributions (60
documents) exceed by far non-academic ones (25 documents).
However, due to the great dispersion in quantity of documents among countries, and
since this figure does not allow us to differenciate a lot between those with lower levels
of scientific outputs, we decided to create another figure without United States and
United Kingdom. Hence, in Figure 3.10, we observe how in the rest of the countries
related with TM research academic contributions are the norm. So, perhaps the
extended belief that TM literature is mainly practitioner oriented is biased by the
predominance of American literature. In fact, the total amount of academic publications
(465 articles) is almost the double of those from non-academic institutions (245
articles).This new Figure also shows how in India contributions from academic and
non-academic institutions are equal. Moreover, in Brazil, México, Oman and Sudan the
total amount of contributions (in all of them, just one) come from non-academic
institutions. A content analysis of these documents will help us to argue if, for example,
they are the result of TM studies in multinational subsidiaries.
151
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Figure 3.10
Scientific production and nature of affiliation (without USA and UK)
3.4.2 Impact and visibility
Although the number of articles published by an author is one of the most used
bibliometrics indicators, is not always the best one since it does not reflect the quality of
those documents. Quality concept in bibliometrics can refer to the quality of the journal
in which the article has been published or the quality of the article itself. Impact Factor
(IF) and citations are usually used in bibliometrics as proxy indicators of quality12. On
one hand, IF is usually used to evaluate the relative importance of a journal among
others in the same field (Benavent, Zurian & Gómez, 2004). IF are calculated each year
on the basis of published articles in a given journal and citations received by those
published articles. On the other hand, citations analysis pretend to explain the document
relevance separated from the journal where is published (i.e., the article is the unit of
analysis). They correspond to the impact of each document have in the researcher
community, since they are measured as the number of times the document is cited in
other articles. So, citation’s analysis depart from the basis that as higher the influence of
12
Both have limitations and detractors that advocate for complementing them with qualitative analysis done by
experts (López & Terrada, 1992). We are going to discuss this further in the limitations section.
152
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
an article, higher the amount of citations it will have throughout the literature, so higher
will be its impact.
In this section we are going to approach the ‘quality’ concept by using both indicators
(IF and citations) as proxies. IF data was retrieved from the Journal Citation Reports
(Thomson-Reuters) the available year and journal in which the article was published. In
short, we retrieved the IF for each journal of our database but from the year when the
article was published. It should be noticed that only IF data was available from 1997
until 2011. In Figure 3.11 we can see how the number of indexed journals has grown
during the last years, particularly from 2004 to present (for further details, see Appendix
A, Table A.8, p. 224).
Figure 3.11
Number of documents published in journals with IF
The 29.59% of the documents are published in an indexed journal. Hence, the vast
majority of publications about TM are published in non-indexed journals. In Figure
3.11, we present the distribution in time of TM publications according to affiliations. It
153
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
clearly shows that from 2004 onwards, and particularly from 2007, academic
contributions are always over practitioners’ ones, although both flows follow the same
trend. Hence, this can be the explanation of this growing trend in number of documents
published in journals with IF. In addition, in Figure 3.12 we can also see how mixed
publications (i.e., written by academics and practitioners in collaboration) are
characterized by their constant flow (not too high, but more or less constant). So, there
is little mixed research, which can be an indicator of the few empirical studies on TM.
Figure 3.12
Distribution of TM publications according to authors’ affiliation
70
academic
60
non academic
mixed
50
40
30
20
10
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
0
Table 3.11 shows those journals with a cumulative IF higher than 2 (as it is well-known
in Social Sciences, and specifically, within the Business and Management field few are
the journals with IF higher than 2). It should be noted than in order to calculate this
table we added the different IF of those articles published from 1990-2013 in those
journals. As was expected, Harvard Business Review has the ‘pole position’. Although,
we previously noted that TM is mainly studied within the HRM field, it is not until the
eighth position that we find one HRM journal in this rank. This can be due to the fact
154
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
that HRM has lower IF than general Management journals. However, again, we see a lot
of dispersion in fields publishing about TM.
Table 3.11
Journals with cumulative IF (n>2) [1997-2011]
Journal
Harvard Business Review
Journal of World Business
Journal of Financial Economics
Journal of Management
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Academy of Management Journal
Academy of Management Perspectives
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Human Resource Management
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Journal of Management Studies
MIT Sloan Management Review
Human Resource Management Journal
Corporate Governance
Academy of Strategic Management Journal
Journal of International Management
Transportation Journal
Journal of Finance
Review of Economic Studies
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Journal of Business Ethics
Human Resource Management Review
Scandinavian Journal of Management
Leadership Quarterly
Journal of Business and Psychology
Review of Financial Studies
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal
Cumulative IF
Number of
documents
79.901
23.087
10.112
8.187
7.876
7.119
6.22
5.686
5.23
5.205
4.673
4.229
4.164
4.136
3.75
3.552
3.377
3.257
2.904
2.74
2.622
2.375
2.216
2.205
2.204
2.2
2.026
49
12
3
2
4
3
2
11
9
1
2
4
3
2
1
3
3
1
1
1
3
6
2
1
2
1
2
Referring to citations, as explained in the methodology section, we retrieved
information from ISI Web of Science (all of them were retrieved during the first two
weeks of May 2013, in order to make data more comparable). We identified 286
documents with citations by WoS. In Table 3.12 is shown the distribution of documents
according to citations and year of publication. As expected the number of citations
155
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
increased over time, despite the fact that as more recent is the document less
opportunities to be cited has.
Table 3.12
Distribution of documents according to citations and year of publication
Range of citations
1990-1998
1999-2003
2004-2008
2009-2013
TOTAL
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
51-55
56-60
>60 &<80
>80 &<200
>400
13
6
3
1
20
9
4
4
2
3
3
1
37
21
9
3
2
5
2
2
92
14
10
2
2
3
1
162
50
26
10
6
11
7
3
1
2
3
3
1
1
TOTAL
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
50
83
1
126
286
If we analyze the citations obtained by each author, we find that H. Scullion – as
mentioned before, the most prolific author on TM- it occupies the 26th position in the
authors’ citation rank (see Table 3.13). If we look a little bit closer to this rank we
should say that D. Miller and J. Shamsie have the 1st and 2nd position in this rank for
their article The Resource-Based View of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood
film studios from 1936 to 1965, published in the Academy of Management Journal (one
of the most prestigious journals in Management) in 1996. So, since that date the
obtained 404 citations that pushes them up to the first positions in this list. In spark
contrast, D. G. Collings is the 3th author most cited about TM due to five articles
published between 2009 and 2012 (both years included). He has not yet any citation for
his article of 2013. Finally, K. Mellahi is in 4th position for his two well-known articles,
156
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
The barriers of effective global talent management: the example of corporate élites in
MNEs and Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda published in
2010 and 2009 respectively, and both co-authored with D. G. Collings, although each of
them leaded one of these articles (i.e., both are the first author in one of them). As we
have explained in the methodology section, we also obtained the articles’ citations in
Google Scholar and Scopus, also during the first two weeks of May. Let’s start saying
that Google Scholar is the database from which retrieved the most number of citations
(31,729), followed by Scopus (6,941) and ISI WoS (6,883). We created the top 40 most
cited authors’ ranking and results vary, as was expected (see Appendix A, Section A.9,
p. 225). D.G. Collings (4th position) and K. Mellahi (5th position) still have high
positions in the Scopus rank (due to the similarity of databases). However, in Google
Scholar, D. G. Collings falls until the 13th position and K. Mellahi until the 32nd. H.
Scullion appears with the 11th position in the Scopus rank, whereas he does not appear
in the top 40 most cited authors’ ranking from Google Scholar (GS). Again, a content
analysis of the documents will help us to explain in more detail the results obtained in
those rankings.
157
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Table 3.13
Top 40 most cited authors by ISI WoS
Number of citations
obtained
Position Author
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Miller, D.
Shamsie, J.
Collings, D. G.
Mellahi, K.
Drazin, R.
Rao, H.
Bosma, N.
de Wit, G.
Thurik, R.
van Praag, M.
Cappelli, P.
Godet, M.
Darby, M. R.
Zucker, L. G.
Macmillan, I. C.
Siegel, E.
Siegel, R.
Banaji, M. R.
Bazerman, M. H.
Chugh, D.
Lyons, S.
Schweitzer, L.
Schuler, R. S.
Tarique, I. C.
Sparrow, P.
Scullion, H.
Bhattacharya, C. B.
Drucker, P. F.
Gardner, T. M.
Marshall, C. R.
Zenger, T. R.
McDonnell, A.
Saleh, S. D.
Wang, C. K.
Boswell, W. R.
Cavanaugh, M. A.
Gagné, F.
Moynihan, L. M.
Roehling, M. V.
Casciaro, T.
404
404
113
86
84
84
79
79
79
79
70
68
64
64
59
59
59
58
58
58
58
58
56
56
54
51
40
39
39
38
38
36
35
35
34
34
34
34
34
33
158
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Finally, if we analyse the association between IF and citations according to number of
authors in the article we cannot establish any kind of correlation 13 . Taking into
consideration all the data, although the correlations numbers are very low, we can
observe a high correlation between Scopus and ISI citations (as expected, since they
share the same journals) and also between these databases and Google Scholar
(although a little bit lower, since GS nurtures from not only indexed journals). In
addition, we observe a negative correlation between number of authors and citations,
i.e., as much number of authors signed an article, the number of citations decreased (see
Appendix A, Section A.10, pp. 226-229). If we repeat the analysis for each year of IF
data available, we observed a lot of contradictory results. In 1997, a positive correlation
between number of authors and IF (0.61) and a negative correlation between number of
authors and citations (-0.51) was found. In 2002, there is a negative correlation between
number of authors and IF (-0.41) and very high correlations among number of authors
and citations (0.8 with GS, 0.86 with Scopus, and 0.84 with ISI WoS). However, in
2003, all the correlations are positive and very high, as it happens in 2010. But, in 2011
all the correlations are negative. We should take into consideration that from these 131
analyzed articles, only one has 12 authors (in 2011), but the norm, as we are going to
see in the next section is to not have high number of authors signing an article as it can
happen in other fields (e.g. Health Sciences). Indeed the average number of authors in
this sample is 2.29. So, the hypothesis of a possible correlation between the number of
authors and the IF cannot be proved, since the sample presents little dispersion referring
to the number of authors (the majority of articles are signed by two (34.35%) or three
authors (32.82%), and only one article has twelve authors). However, we can refute the
13
For doing that analysis we took those articles for which we have the citation data of the three databases (Google
Scholar, Scopus and ISI WoS). A total of 131 articles were analyzed.
159
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
possible association between greater number of authors and citations. It is obvious that
other factors (e.g. journal prestige, authors’ prestige) can influence the results.
3.4.3 Collaboration
Scientific collaboration is usually defined as the work of two or more researchers within
a research common plan. The rythym of collaboration has grown in importance,
probably due to the improvement of telecommunications, multidisciplinariety, the
increasing mobility of researchers, the complexity of research, economic and financial
aspects, and the priority development of projects from different countries (NoguerCarmona et al., 2006). Collaboration can take different forms, from interpersonal
collaboration, to the most sophisticate and complex kind, within research institutions
with formal agreeements. However, some authors agree on the fact that the majority of
collaborations start in an informal way, as result of informal conversations facilitated by
spatial proximity of researchers (cf. Edge, 1979; Stokes & Hartley, 1989). Nowadays,
the increasing number of international conferences and mobility possibilities (e.g.,
research stay, visiting professors) can make international informal interactions possible,
which could lead to international collaboration.
In bibliometrics, one of the most frequent used indicators about collaboration is coauthorship, and involve, among other measures, the volume of documents signed by
more than one author, co-authorship index (average number of authors per article), ratio
of international collaboration.
160
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
In TM, 1276 authors, sign 703 articles, which leads to a collaboration index ration of
0.55 authors per document. More specifically, 428 documents out of 703 were written
in collaboration, i.e. 60.88% of the documents was co-authored. So, we can conclude
that collaboration is the norm in TM research (see Figure 3.13).
Figure 3.13
Is the document co-authored?
In Figure 3.14 we present the number of documents co-authored for each year of the
studied period of time. Interestingly the most prolific year (as mentioned before was
2011) the number of collaborations suffered a decrease.
In TM, despite there is one document signed by 12 authors, another one signed by 7
authors, and two documents signed by 7 authors, the most common collaboration is
between 2 authors (223 documents), followed by signatures of 3 authors (145
documents). In Table 3.14, the exact number of co-authorship is detailed (for further
details, see Appendix A, Section A.11, p. 230).
161
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Figure 3.14
Number of documents co-authored per year
Table3.14
Number of authors per document
Number of authors
Number of publications
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
12
275
223
145
44
12
1
2
1
Total
428
In TM, there is 14.22% of international collaboration (i.e., 100 articles were written by
people from different countries), and there is 37.98% of collaboration within the same
162
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
organization (267 documents). Indeed, collaboration within the same organization is
present from 1990 whilst, the first international collaboration occurred in 1996 and it
was not until 2005 that it became annually present. In addition, there is a 1.71% of
collaboration with Spanish institutions (i.e., the affiliation of, at least, one of the authors
is from Spain), concentrated in the last five years. In Appendix A (Section A.12, p.
231),detailed information about collaboration is showed.
Finally, collaboration (co-authorship) is related to a greater number of citations, that is,
while papers from one author have 4.83 citations on average, this average increases to
9.19 when is co-author with another researcher, and to 7.02 when more than 2
researchers are involved (see Appendix A, Section A.13, p. 232).
3.5 Discussion
Based on our in-depth bibliometric analysis of the literature on talent management, we
can conclude that TM is a quite new field that fights for consolidate, although it is still
in its early steps. It is characterized by an initial very moderate start in terms of
publications and collaborations followed by a rather intense increase in both
dimensions, as it is expected from a discipline that is still developing. Collaborations
(i.e., co-authorship) are quite recent in time, particularly when authors come from two
or more countries.Further, TM literature still shows a great amount of dispersion in
journals. Not having a well-known group of journals of reference could be argued to be
an indication of a rather new academic discipline. Let us look however to these and
other indicatots with some detail. To this aim we have followed a similar structure as
the one lay out in the results section.
163
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Productivity in TM research
Throughout the period studied (1990-2013) scientific production on TM enjoyed a
continuos growth. We could thus confirm the first of our hypothesis (the number of
documents published is going to grow during the period 1990-2013). Thunnissen et al.
(2013) in their recent review of the literature, argue that TM has enjoyed great academic
attention, particularly, in the past ten years. Indeed, we observed that in the last eight
years (from 2004 to 2012) TM literature experienced a huge growth, despite some
punctual fluctuations (specifically, in 2006 and 2009). So, our second hypothesis has
been confirmed and also refined: The increment in publications on TM is going to be
particularly intense within the last eight years. In brief, the evolution of TM research
production could be characterised by three distinct periods. A first period (1990-2003)
in which we could witness a slow but steady increase in published articles, a second
period (2004-2008) of rapid progression, and a third period (2009-2012) defined by a
rather more moderate increase in production.
In TM literature we found a great number of journals with only one or two publications
related to TM in the period, which is an indication of a rather incipient discipline. Our
third hypothesis is therefore confirmed: it is going to be a lot of dispersion when talking
about journals. TM does not hold Bradford’s Law. However, during the last eight years
(the most prolific ones) a great amount of journals that publish about TM are from
HRM field. So, again, we confirm Thunnissen et al. (2013) reasoning that wide
attention to TM has been given from the HRM field. Indeed, the second journal with
more number of articles published on TM is The International Journal of Human
164
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Resource Management. Moreover, within the top 10 most prolific journalsn on TM, 4
are from the field of HRM.
When talking about author’s productivity, a very few number of authors (2.12%) have
published more than 2 articles on TM in the period covered, and just one author (H.
Scullion) published 10. In fact, 91.93% of the authors have published only one paper.
So, here we find yet another indication of the inmaturity of the field. Although we can
conclude that there is an inverse relation between the number of publications and the
number of authors producing these publications (hypothesis 4), TM literature do not fit
Lotka’s distribution at usual levels of significance (i.e., 0.01 or 0.05).Why?We assume
that this happens because, the vast majority of articles (91.93%),has been published by
only one author, i.e., the distribution is already concentrated in one point. In short, TM
is still too inmature to have the appropriate level of articles’ distribution among the
different levels of productivity to fit Lotka’s law. Moreover, we should point out that 7
out of the first 10 most prolific authors are from academia and their publications are
mainly from 2008 onwards. Taking this together with the fact that the first 5 months of
2013 have been very prolific, presumably, TM will definitely experience a great
advance.
North-America influence on the TM literature has been widely proclaimed (cf. Collings
et al., 2011; Thunnissen et al., 2013) and in our study we have also confirmed this. As
we statedunder hypothesis 5, the majority of the work done on TM comes from the
United States (48.11%), followed by the United Kingdom (13.07%), Australia (4.92%)
and Canada (3.84%). So, it is certain the dominance of English speaking countries on
the TM literature. An interesting point to discuss here is a widely spread belief in
165
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
current TM literature about its practitioner-oriented basis and focus (cf. Iles, Chuai et
al., 2010; Preece, Iles, & Chuai, 2011). From our study we can confirm that among the
top five prolific institutions, three are companies or consultancies. However, two
universities occupy the first positions: Harvard University (with a long tradition in TM
research, and 26 articles published) and the National University of Ireland (NUI),
recently incorporated to the TM research (from 2009 to date) but with 17 published
documents. Certainly NIU could be considered as a core institution on TM, not to
mention the authors to these papers.
The practitioner-oriented basis and focus of TM is largely derived from the fact that
contributions from the United States are half academic and non-academic. A more
detailed analysis using content analysis is needed, however, to fully appraise the
different approaches and conceptual bases used by academic and non-academic writers
to TM literature.From our study we can argue that, with the exception of United States,
and some other countries with limited weight in the total amount of publications on TM
during the period studied, the vast majority of contributions come from academic
institutions. This refuses our sixth hypothesis where, perhaps influenced by the idea of a
well-known practitioner-oriented focus of TM, we expected to find mostly nonacademic institutions among authors’ affiliations. In short, the vast majority of TM
literature comes from academia, yet a content analysis is needed to identify the type of
contributions, the strands of thought behind this discipline and, basically, its theoretical
foundations.
Finally, the Spanishcontribution to TM is scarce (1.62%), although not as scarce as we
honestly expected. Viewed from a complementary angle, only the 1.8% of all authors
166
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
has a Spanish affiliation. We can thus confirm our hypothesis 7: little work on TM is
coming from Spanish institutions.
Visibility and impact in TM research
We have shown the number of documents published in journals with IF has grown
during the last decade. So, we confirm our hypothesis 8. This can be reasonably
explained by the fact that during the last eight years TM literature, mainly from the
academia, has experienced an incredible increase in number.
Our hypothesis 9 statedIt can be established an association between impact factor and
citations according to number of authors, and we have not been able to fully appraise
this relationship. We confirm that not a large number of articles have citations (286 out
of 703) and these have been largely published in the last 4 years. The fact of finding two
authors (Miller & Shamsie) that exceed 400 citations in the period considered it is not
rare itself. What becomes particularly ackward is the fact that these citations come form
one single study published in 1996 at the Academy of Management Journal. In fact, the
article that lauch its authors to rank 1 in number of citations has been published for 17
years and in one of the most prestigious journals in management and in its title does not
have neither ‘talent’ nor ‘management’. Similarly, the top ranked author in terms of
number of publications (H. Scullion), only occupies the 26thposition in the citation list.
We could argue these are also characteristics of an incipient field of research.
Collaboration in TM research
As literature science tells us, a well-consolidated field is characterized by collaboration
from all over the world. In TM research collaboration (i.e., co-authorship) is the rule
167
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
(the 60.88% of the total amount of documents are written in collaboration) and
increases over time although with some fluctuations. However, and in stark contrast
with well-established fields of study, the level of international collaboration is low
(14.22%), and it is quite recent (from 2005 onwards) although it is growing year by
year. Probably this can be explained for specific conferences about TM that has beging
to taking place (e.g. 1st Workshop on Talent Management organized by EIASM in
2012) and the higher international mobility of scholars. Collaboration within the same
organization has been present since 1990 in TM literature, following probably the
plausible explanation of its development from informal spatial proximity interactions.
Finally, the Spanish number of collaborations is growing but is mainly within the same
university. So, we accept our entiregroup of hypothesis about collaboration.
3.6 Limitations of the study
Despite its potential contributions to talent management research, the current study did
have a number of limitations. First of all, as was mentioned in the methodology section,
the keywords used to retrieve documents for this bibliometric analysis were ‘talent’ and
‘management’. Indeed, we used AND as a boolean operator for the queries in title,
abstract or topic, and keywords, since we wanted to be as concrete as possible (e.g.,
there is plenty of literature about talent/s but not realted to management). However, this
way of search could desestimate those articles that do not mention explicitly ‘talent’ but
‘talents’ or any other variations of the term (e.g., talented), and also, those articles that
only include one of those keywords instead of both. Althoughdoing the searches within
the ‘abstract’ and ‘topic’ fields has minimized the latter effect, the descriptors used
looking for specificity may cause to lose in sensibility.
168
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Second, in order to endow the documents studied with uniformity, the present analysis
only include articles published in peer-reviewed journals and in English. So, we didn’t
consider contributions to conferences, editorials, interviews, or books reviews, and all
the literature that was not in English. Despite the fact of being non-English literature on
TM a small minority, in the last eight years contributions in Spanish, Bulgarian,
Chinese and other languages has grown. So, looking for uniformity we may lose
sensibility.
Third, when calculting the Bradford’s zones, in order to define n (i.e., the number of
journals of the core or nucleous zone) we used the following criteria: the number of
journals that correspond to the first third of articles. In short, we divided the 703
publications about TM into three parts each with 234.33 235 papers. The number of
journals that accumulated the first 235 papers was 16. So, in the present study n equals
16. However, the rejection of the Bradford’s Law in the present case, although it is in
sync with the rejection of the Lotka’s Law since both laws are related, should be taken
with some caution, at least, until with another arbitraty way of calculating n is rejected.
Fourth, some other limitations can come from the validity of the indicators of
collaboration. In this study we study collaboration through co-authorship, and,
according to Ahmed and Rahman (2009) we considered ‘full productivity’ of
authorship, i.e., “authors were given full credit for every publication in which his or her
name appears” (p. 96). Although collaboration is conventionally measured through coauthorship, such indicator must be treated with caution (Katz & Martin, 1997): a) there
are many cases of collaboration that does not end in a co-authored document, which
169
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
make them undetectable; b) There are other cases of, at best, indirect forms of
interaction between researchers that yield co-authored publications. It is widely known
that sometimes the authors’ list respond to social reasons or ‘institutional tolls’ (La
Follette, 1992; Hagstrom, 1965). In addition, not all the collaborations activities are
reflected in a joint publication, but each author can publish the results in his/her own
research field (cf. Noguer-Carmona et al., 2006).
Fifth, the use of IF and citations as quality indicators of a document has many
limitations (cf. Noguer-Carmona et al., 2006), although we wish to stress that are the
ones used in bibliometrics. However, it is necessary to associate these indicators to
qualitative evaluations, i.e., some expert content analysis of the documents.
3.7 Further avenues for research
The paper at hand is the first to address a complete and in-depth analysis of the structure
of the field of TM as an academic discipline. However, it is a preliminary study in
which we analyzed the structure of TM as a field and define the trends during the last 20
years. Undoubtedly, there is still a lot to do. First, a systemic overview of the state of
the art (i.e., a content analysis of this 703 articles) is also of urgent need to completely
understand and draw the big picture of TM research from its inception until present.
Specifically, this content analysis wil help to establish and define academic progresses
and remaining gaps of analysis. Indeed, this is going to be our next line of research. We
are in the process of carrying out an in-depth content analysis of the existing literature
from 1990 to 2013, focusing and analyzing publication’s abstract, keywords, type of
article (i.e., empirical or theoretical) and its methodology (qualitative, quantitative or
170
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
mixed). This analysis will contribute to a better understanding of the field and, above
all, of its academic progress. Indeed, it will enable researchers new to the field to
proceed with their work fully aware of key findings to date, seminal authors and
journals and main strands of thought behind this construct. In fact, we plan to deduce
fundamental gaps in the existing literature on talent management—which will allow us
to be very specific about the most pressing avenues for future research in the field.
171
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
References
Ahmed, S. M. Z., & Rahman, A. (2009). Lotka’s law and authorship distribution in
nutrition research in Bangladesh. Annals of Library and Information Studies,
56(2), 95-102.
Benavent, R. A., Zurian, J. C.V., & Gómez, M. C. (2004). Impact factor of the Spanish
medical journal. Medicina Clínica, 123(18), 697-701.
Bhatnagar, J. (2008). Managing capabilities for talent engagement and pipeline
development. Industrial and Commerical Training, 40(1), 19-28.
Bradford, S. C. (1946). Documentation, London: Crosby Lockwood.
Chambers, E.G., Foulton, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S.M., and Michaels Ill, E.G.
(1998), ‘The War for Talent,’ McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 44–57.
Chuai, X., Preece, D. & Iles, P. (2008). Is talent management just “old wine in new
bottles”?: The case of multinational companies in Beijing. Management
Research News, 31(12), 901-911.
Coile, R. C. (1977). Lotka’s frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science, 28(6), 366-370.
Collings, D. G. & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and
research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304-313.
Collings, D. G., Scullion, H., & Vaiman, V. (2011). European perspectives on talent
management. European Journal of International Management, 5(5), 453–462.
Edge, D. (1979) Quantitative measures of communication in science: A critical review.
History of Science, 17, 102-134.
Escalona, M. I., Lagar, P., & Pulgarín, A. (2010). Web of Science vs SCOPUS: Un
estudio cuantitativo en Ingeniería Química. Anales de Documentación, 13, 159175.
172
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Festing, M., Schäfer, L. & Scullion, H. (2013). Talent management in medium-sized
German companies: An explorative study and agenda for future research. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9), 18721893.
Garrow, V., & Hirsh, W. (2008). Talent management: Issues of Focus and Fit. Public
Personnel Management, 37(4), 389-402.
Gundolf, K., & Filser, M. (2013). Management research and religion: A citation
analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 177-185.
Guthridge, M., Komm, A. B., & Lawson, E. (2008). Making Talent a Strategic Priority.
McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 48–59.
Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. Carbondale (Illinois): Southern
Illinois University Press.
Hatum, A. (2010). Next generation talent management: Talent management to survive
turmoil. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Höglund, M. (2012). Quid pro quo? Examining talent management through the lens of
psychological contracts. Personnel Review, 41(2), 126-142.
Hülle, J., Kaspar, R., & Möller, K. (2011). Multiple criteria decision-making in
management accounting and control-state of the art and research perspectives
based on a bibliometric study. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis,
18(5-6), 253-265.
Iles, P., Preece, D., & Chuai, X. (2010). Talent management as a management fashion
in HRD: towards a research agenda. Human Resource Development
International, 13(2), 125-145.
Íñiguez-Rueda, L., Martínez-Martínez, L. M., Muñoz-Justicia, J. M., Peñaranda-Cólera,
M. C., Sahagún-Padilla, M. A., & Alvarado, J. G. (2008). The mapping of
173
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Spanish social psychology through its conferences: A bibliometric perspective.
The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 137158.
Jones, R. (2008). Social capital: bridging the link between talent management and
knowledge management. In V. Vaiman & C. M. Vance (Eds.), Smart talent
management: Building knowledge assets for competitive advantage (pp. 217233). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy,
26(1), 1-18.
La Follete, M. C. (1992). Stealing into print: fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in
scientific publishing. Berkeley: University of California.
Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent Management: A critical review. Human
Resource Management Review,16(2), 139-154.
Liu, Z., Liu, Y., Guo, Y., & Wang, H. (2013). Progress in global parallel computing
research: a bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 95, 967-983.
Liu, X., Xhan, F. B., Hong, S., Niu, B., Liu, Y. (2012). A bibliometric study of
earthquake research: 1990-2010. Scientometrics, 92, 747-765.
López, J. M., & Terrada, M. L. (1992). Los indicadores bibliométricos y la evaluación
de la actividad médico-científica (I) Usos y abusos de la bibliometría. Medicina
Clínica, 98, 64-68.
Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of
Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317-323.
Mäkelä, K., Björkman, I., & Ehrnrooth, M. (2010). How do MNCs establish their talent
pools? Influences on individuals’ likelihood of being labeled as talent. Journal
of World Business, 45(2), 134-142.
174
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Martín, M. I., Pestana, A. I., & Pulgarín, A. (2008). Lotka law applied to the scientific
production of information science area. Brazilian Journal of Information
Science, 2(1), 16-30.Retrieved from: http://www.bjis.unesp.br/pt/
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Noguer-Carmona, S., Gallo, P., Parada, A., García-Duran Huet, M., Méndez-Vázquez,
R. I., & Suñen-Pinyol, E. (Noviembre, 2006). Estudio bibliométrico sobre
esquizofrenia en España (1999-2004): productividad, impacto y colaboración
(2nd ed.). Barcelona: SENYFundació.
Pao, M. L. (1985). Lotka’s law: a testing procedure. Information Processing &
Management, 21(4), 305-320.
Pao, M. L. (1986). An empirical examination of Lotka’s law. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 37(1), 26-3.
Peters, H. P. F. (1991). Structuring scientific activities by co-author analysis.
Scientometrics, 20(1), 235-255.
Pinto, M., Escalona-Fernández, M. I., &Pulgarín, A. (2013). Information literacy in
social sciences and health sciences: a bibliometric study (1974 – 2011).
Scientometrics, 95, 10711094.
Prévot, F., Branchet, B., Boissin, J.P., Castagnos, J.C., & Guieu, G. (2010). The
intellectual structure of the competence-based management field: A
bibliometric analysis. In R. Sanchez, A. Heene & T. Zimmermann (eds.),
Research in Competence-Based Management (pp. 231-258). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Prince, D. J. S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University
Press.
175
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
Ramos-Rodríguez, A. R., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intelectual
structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the strategic
management journal, 1980-2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 981-1004.
Samiee, S., & Chabowski, B. R. (2012). Knowledge structure in international
marketing: a multi-method bibliometric analysis. Journal of the Academy
Marketing Science, 40(2), 364-386.
Stokes, T. D., & Hartley, J. A. (1989). Coauthorship, social structure and influence
within specialties. Social Studies of Science, 19, 101-125.
Strack, R., Caye, J.-M., Teichmann, C., Haen, P., Frick, G., & Bird, S. (September,
2011). Creating people advantage 2011. Time to act: HR certainties in
uncertain times. Boston: The Boston Consulting Group, Inc., and the European
Association for People Management.
Talukdar, D. (2011). Patterns of research productivity in the business ethics literature:
Insights from analyses of bibliometric distributions. Journal of Business Ethics,
98(1), 137-151.
Thunnissen, M., Boselie P., & Fruytier, B. (in press). Talent management and the
relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach [Special issue]. Human
Resource Management Review.
Urbizagástegui, R. (2005). La productividad científica de los autores: Un modelo de
aplicación de la ley de Lotka por el método del poder inverso generalizado [The
scientific productivity of authors: An application model of Lotka’s Law by the
generalized inverse power method]. Información, Cultura y Sociedad, 12, 5173.
Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., & Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring
progress and evolution in science and technology- I: The multiple uses of
176
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
bibliometrics indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2),
179-211.
Vogel, R. (2012). The visible colleges of management and organization studies: A
bibliometric analysis of academic journals. Organization Studies, 33(8), 10151043.
Wang, H., Liu, M., Hong, S., & Zhuang, Y. (2013). A historical review and bibliometric
analysis of GPS research from 1991-2010. Scientometrics, 95, 35-44.
Wallin, M. W. (2012). The bibliometric structure of spin-off literature. Innovation:
Management, policy & practice, 14(2), 162-177.
177
Chapter 3. Exploring the talent management literature: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2013)
178
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Conclusions
179
Conclusions
180
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
“Students of scientific endeavors note the constraints on progress that are created by
established paradigms. Existing frameworks and paradigms create the language that
describes the challenges as well as the solutions. (…) Paradigms come undone when they
encounter problems that they cannot address. But before the old paradigm is overthrown,
there must be an alternative, one that describes new developments better than the old one
does.”
Peter Cappelli
[Capelli, P. (2008). Talent on demand. Managing talent in an age of uncertainty. Boston: Harvard Business Press, pp. 229-230]
In this dissertation three key questions for TM research were covered within three
chapters, defined as three different papers, with the aim to help fill the gap of solid
theoretical foundations for TM research. Hence, it can be defined as mainly a
conceptual dissertation. In this concluding chapter we will first go over the main
findings and conclusions of each of these three chapters. Then, we will address
directions for further research.
Overview of findings and summary of main conclusions
‘What is the meaning of ‘talent’ in the world of work?’ was the starting research
question of this dissertation (Chapter 1). Based on our in-depth historical review of the
literature on talent management, we conclude that there is a fundamental lack of
181
Conclusions
consensus as to the meaning of ‘talent’ in the world of work which is hindering the
establishment of widely accepted talent management theories and practices. As a
response to this gap in the literature, we established a clear framework for the
conceptualization of talent within the business realm. We argue that talent is
conceptualized in two broad ways: a) talent as object, and b) talent as subject. In
addition we posit that these views can coexist in the same organization since they can
perfectly complement one another. Within the subject approach, talent is conceptualized
as people in an organization. Two different interpretations of this can lead to an
inclusive or an exclusive approach. On one hand, the inclusive approach defines talent
as all employees of an organization, which sounds like the repeated mantra of many
leaders since the beginning of this century: people are our most important asset.On the
other hand, the exclusive approach understands talent as an elite subset of the
organization’s population. But, how can organizations identify this elite subset?
Normally, they reduce this elite to high performers and high potentials. Both groups are
characterized by singular characteristics, which lead us to the object approach to talent.
Talent understood as characteristics of people is usually related to natural abilities
and/or developed skills that lead to superior performance. Moreover, it has been proven
that behavioral components need to be present in order to achieve outstanding results,
such as: commitment to one’s position and to one’s employing organization. Also
context is very important not only to have the opportunity to show and put in practice
your abilities but also, to have the opportunity to evolve and be identified as high
potential or a high performer, let alone to define talent. So, being in the right
organization, in the right position, and at the right time is fundamental to apply and
show your talent. Hence, different definitions of talent can exist, not only in the
182
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
business realm but also within the same organization, since different abilities and
attitudes are needed.
Once we arrived at the conclusion that there is ongoing confusion and different
perspectives about talent within the world of work, but being aware of recent TM
studies focusing on practices we wondered how is talent identified? So, we engaged
ourselves in another in-depth review of the literature in order to elucidate a way to
operationalize the identification of talent in business. A multidisciplinary review was
done, since a whole body of literature about talent exists outside the HRM domain. We
identified three literature streams as being of particular relevance: the giftedness
literature, vocational psychology, and positive psychology. Building on from insights
from these different literature streams, we identified two components of talent: an
ability component and an affective component. Both can be subsumed in the object
approach to talent. In addition, we argue that these two dimensions are complementary,
and that talent consists of three central characteristics: manifestation in excellent
performance, developed innate abilities, and passion—with the latter further subdivided
into ‘motivation to invest’ (i.e., activities one wants to invest energy in) and ‘interests’
(i.e., activities one likes and finds important).
We posit that these three keycharacteristics listed above can help distinguish between
talent, competence and potential, usually misused as interchangeable within the TM
field, and this distinction will help in talent identification. The difficulty in
distinguishing between talent and competence can be brought back to ‘manifestation
issues’.
Talent
manifests
itself
in
good
competencies
that
lead
to
outstandingachievements. Thisemphasizesthe rarity of talent, which is not a prerequisite
183
Conclusions
for competence(Gagné, 2004). So, competence measures can be applied to detect the
ability component of talent, as is frequently done in organizations. The focus, however,
should be on individuals who achieve exceptionally high scores as an expression of
talent and not merely competence. So, an exclusive approach is necessary. To this end,
organizations should develop and apply measures in which ceiling effects can be
avoided so that individuals ranging from mildly to extremely talented—who might fall
outside of the norms of standard tests—can be adequately identified (Bianco, 2010). In
addition, the conceptualization of talent, in comparison with that of competence, pays
more attention to passion as a necessary condition for achieving excellence. Having the
(intrinsic or extrinsic) motivation to conduct a certain activity, usually linked to
competence, does not necessarily imply that one likes to invest time and energy in it.
The latter refers to the aspect of passion, which is a specific element of talent that is not
associated with competence, and should be explicitly measured—in addition to
ability—to identify talent. Finally, potential refers to future opportunities and denotes
something that has not yet manifested but is latently present. Talent, as previously
exposed, has a here-and-now character. Althoughlatent(innate) factorsunderlie talent,
the emphasis is onthe manifestation oftalent into excellence. Consequently, the
manifestation in excellence could be described as the distinguishing factor between
talent and potential.
A multidisciplinary review of literature enriches the output obtained since one could
add different perspectives. However, we want to stress that different strain of thought
lead to different treatment of individuals, and to different ways to identify talented
individuals. For example, vocational psychologists and positivie psychologists pursue
equality and posit that everyone possesses a unique constellation of talents that needs to
184
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
be deployed, whilst the gitftedness literature holds onto its elitist view on talent and it is
concerned mostly with equity in the sense that everyone should have an equal
opportunity to earn the rare label of talent, which in turn leads to an unequal treatment
between the identified and the non-identified.
Organizations seem to frequently base their talent investments solely on performance
scores, a method insufficient for capturing a holistic view of talent. We managed to
summarize in a table an overview of different discussed measures and methods to
identify talent, and by doing this highlight some practical implications. Those methods
emphasize different components (i.e., ability, interests, and motivation) of the construct
of talent and vary in terms of the measurement approach taken (i.e., standardized versus
open-ended). Being aware that each measurement has its own specific possibilities and
limitations, a mixture of different measures and methods is advisable. However, since
talent identification is conducted within the restrictions of a specific organizational
setting, we offer some guidelines to facilitate this choice: a) strategic alignment of talent
identification practices with the specific talent definition, which also requires its
alignment with the strategic aims of the organization; b) besides strategically aligned,
measures and methods should also possess satisfactory psychometric qualities. Insights
from the personnel selection literature and the social psychology literature are of
particular importance at this point since their insights could help unravel the process
underlying talent identification and shed light on how talent assessments are potentially
influenced by all sorts of biases inherent to the way in which, and by whom measures
and methods are applied. The personnel selection literature and the social psychology
literature show that talent assessments are subjective in nature due to the influence of
characteristics of raters, ratees and the context in which they are embedded. We could
185
Conclusions
state that talent is only detected when it is individually are socially perceived as being
present by evaluators. Therefore, we advise using multi-source assessments in order to
reduce bias that could result from using only one assessor (Smither, London & Reilly,
2005). A general rule of thumb is that assessments approach accuracy, when multiple
evaluations correspond, making inter-rater reliability the main criteria to assess the
accuracy of talent judgments. In sync, we suggest combining tests, self, peer and
supervisor instruments that are included in Table 2.2. We strongly advise organizations
to incorporate self-assessment tools in the identification process, because those could
help shed light on motivation and interest areas, components of talent that are not
always completely visible to other parties. Because motivation and interests are
approached as dynamically influenced by personal and environmental factors (Ibarra,
1999), we emphasize that talent identification should be a continuous endeavor. Within
this perspective, life-long interventions for talent identification are deemed suitable, not
just early-career interventions thatit is the usual case today (Savickas et al., 2009).
After having questioned talent definition within the business realm and the way in
which it is identified, our first initial big question came to our mind:How is TM
operationalized? In short, what is TM? In order to shed light on these questions, and
being coherent with our previous approaches, we startedwith the question: How much
do we know about TM?It was still a huge research question but, at least, it was
manageable. We conductedan in-depth bibliometric analysis of the literature on TM for
the period 1990-2013 and our main conclusion is that TM is a quite new field that fights
for consolidation, although it is still in its early steps. In fact, this result corroborates
what we found in our previous studies: the confusion around the talent concept, and
around its identification. TM literature is characterized by an initially very moderate
186
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
start in terms of publications and collaborations followed by a rather intense increase in
both dimensions, as it is expected from a discipline that is still developing. In brief, the
evolution of TM research production could be characterised by three distinct periods. A
first period (1990-2003) in which we could witness a slow but steady increase in
published articles, a second period (2004-2008) of rapid progression, and a third period
(2009-2012) defined by a steeper increase in production. It should be taken into account
that due to our search criteria those articles that do not mention explicitly ‘talent’ and
‘management’ were excluded. However, this limitation was minimized by including
searches in the ‘topic’ and ‘abstract’ fields.
We found a lot of dispersion when talking about journals within the TM literature. Not
being able to delineate a well-known group of reference journals could be argued to be
an indication of TM being a rather new academic discipline. However, we can confirm
Thunnissen et al.’s (2013) reasoning that wide attention to TM has been given from the
HRM field, since during the last eight years (the most prolific ones) a great amount of
journals publishing about TM are from the HRM field. Another interesting finding is
that the 91.93% of the authors have published only one paper, which is another
unambiguous statement of the immaturity of the field. Due to this fact, TM literature
does not conform to two of the most relevant bibliometric laws (Lotka’s Law and
Bradford’s Law).
We can posit that is certain the dominance of English speaking countries on TM
literature. In fact, the majority of the work done on TM comes from the United States
(48.11%), followed by the United Kingdom (13.07%), Australia (4.92%) and Canada
(3.84%). Although, one could question these results since we focused only in articles
187
Conclusions
published in English and peer-reviewed journals, we should say that the number of
articles in English represent 97.4% of the total results retrieved in Scopus and 96.79%
of the total results retrieved in WoS. So, at least considering articles published we were
working with nearly the whole sample. From our study we can confirm that the widelyspread belief in current TM literature about its practitioner-oriented basis and focus is
biased for the great amount of contributions from the United States which are half
academic and the other half non-academic. In fact, the vast majority of TM literature
mainly comes from academic institutions and from the last eight years, which is also
reflected in the increase of number of documents published in journals with IF. It should
be said that the Spanish contribution to TM is scarce (1.62%), although not as scarce as
we expected. Collaboration (i.e., co-authorship) is quite recent in time, particularly
when authors come from two or more countries, which is more clear proof that TM is
not a well-established field of study.
This dissertation is one of the first conceptual studies devoted to talent management.
We managed to shed light on some obscure and unquestioned topics, although, we
cannot claim to have found accurate, unequivocal answers to the questions posed. There
is still plenty to do. After more than four years studying talent and talent management I
could only say, quoting Socrates, I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.
Directions for future research
In this work we provide a critical review of talent and the talent management literature.
By doing so, we lay solid foundations for future research, since we identify critical
topics, trends, changes and omissions in the scientific approach to TM. Indeed, since
188
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
TM is an emerging field of study, lots of questions remain unanswered. Below are some
research questions thathave arisen from our research and that, at present, are awakening
great interest in the author.
Would it be possible to give a more concrete definition of talent within the
business realm?Starting from our framework for the conceptualization of
talent defined in the first chapter, and the key components identified in the
second chapter, we consider it possible to create a generic (but not vague)
definition of talent. Obviously, depending on the industry, business and
position (i.e., context) this generic definition should be adapted 1 . Having a
definition will allow researches to focus on developing practices to identify it,
quickly and easily, and also, manage it in a better way (i.e. more effectively).
Clearly, and this point was made evident in the second chapter,
multidisciplinary research is needed since talent is a very complex construct
that can benefit from different theoretical perspectives as we have seen in this
study. Complementary views can help to draw a more complete definition of
talent, and by doing so can also help to define methods and measures to
identify it. We also need more cross-national research on talent. Our literature
reviews were mainly focused on documents published in English, but most
importantly and as our bibliometric analysis confirmed, our sources were
usually from English speaking countries. So, it is possible that the field has a
biased picture of the construct. Hence, it is of urgent need to develop research
on talent within the world of work in other countries, in order to expand our
understanding of this construct. Does talent have different meanings across
1
In fact, one definition of talent was already proposed in a previous work published as a working paper (see,
Appendix B). Although, it needs to be further developed.
189
Conclusions
countries/cultures? Should multinational companies worry about a ‘local’
understanding of talent?
What is the best way to implement talent identification practices? How are
identification processes experienced by employees? What is the best way to
communicate the results of a talent identification process? Although we have
mentioned that the exclusive view of talent is the most prevalent in
organizations, little attention has been paid not only to how the identification
processes are experienced by employees, but also to how the results of this
processes are communicated by the organization and what effects have in those
employees not labeled as talent. Again, cross-national studies would be
necessary. Which talent identification measures and methods fit better within
a specific culture? Do employees from different countries (although working
within the same multinational company) react equally to exact identification
practices?
How TM has been approached in the literature? What are the main streams
of thought behind this topic? Is there any solid theoretical foundation?
Chapter three helps to put us on the right track to answer these questions. After
having drawn a complete descriptive picture of TM literature in terms of
productivity, impact and visibility and collaboration, a systemic overview of
the state of the art (i.e., a content analysis) is also afundamental to completely
understand the big picture of TM research from its inception until present.
Specifically, this content analysis will help to establish and define academic
progresses and remaining gaps of analysis. Indeed, we are in the process of
190
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
carrying out an in-depth content analysis of the existing literature from 19902013. Moreover, in a few years time it would be interesting to see if the TM
literature will reflect Lotka’s and Bradford’s Law since, in the present analysis
and presumably because of the novelty of the field, these laws do not hold.
Similarly, doing an evaluation of different models for Bradford’s law with the
present data will help us to confirm our assumptions for its non-fitting.
****************
This dissertation is among the first to address fundamental questions that should
advance the development of the TM research field. We questioned the meaning of
talent, since it is critical in order to know how to manage it, and we defined a
framework for its conceptualization within the business realm. We also proposed some
methods, measures and guidelines to help identify this talent in the organizations.
Finally, we offer the first in-depth analysis of the structure of the TM field as an
academic discipline. In short, and paraphrasing Prof. Peter Cappelli, we studied existing
frameworks and paradigms seeing in them the challenges underneath, and we tried to
offer some alternative in order to help describe new developments better than the old
ones did.
191
Conclusions
192
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
APPENDIXES
193
Appendixes
194
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Appendix A: Additional data
195
Appendix A: Additional data
196
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
A.1 Number and nature of documents selected from BSP and PsycINFO databases
Nature of Selected articles
Search equation executed
Selected articles
Empirical
Theoretical
Talent* AND Identif*
18
6
12
Gift* AND Identif*
10
3
7
Strength* AND Identif*
7
1
6
Talent* AND defin*
5
3
2
Gift* AND defin*
4
0
4
Strength* AND defin*
2
1
1
Talent* AND detect*
2
1
1
Gift* AND detect*
0
0
0
Strength* AND detect*
1
0
1
Talent* AND select*
5
3
2
Gift* AND select*
2
1
1
Strength* AND select*
2
0
2
Talent* AND Assess*
22
8
14
Gift* AND Assess*
6
3
3
Strength* AND Assess*
9
3
6
Talent* AND Measure*
17
6
11
Gift* AND Measure*
4
4
0
Strength* AND Measure*
3
2
1
Talent* AND Tool*
3
0
3
Gift* AND Tool*
0
0
0
Strength* AND Tool*
7
2
5
Talent* AND Scale*
2
2
0
Gift* AND Scale*
4
3
1
Strength* AND Scale*
9
9
0
Talent* AND Method*
15
9
6
Gift* AND Method*
1
1
0
Strength* AND Method*
1
1
0
161
72
89
TOTAL
197
Appendix A: Additional data
A.2Distribution of publications on TM over time
Year
Number of
documents
%
Cumulative %
of documents
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013a
6
2
8
5
3
4
8
9
6
10
11
14
17
12
13
31
23
45
80
62
94
97
92
51
0,85%
0,28%
1,14%
0,71%
0,43%
0,57%
1,14%
1,28%
0,85%
1,42%
1,56%
1,99%
2,42%
1,71%
1,85%
4,41%
3,27%
6,40%
11,38%
8,82%
13,37%
13,80%
13,09%
7,25%
0,85%
1,14%
2,28%
2,99%
3,41%
3,98%
5,12%
6,40%
7,25%
8,68%
10,24%
12,23%
14,65%
16,36%
18,21%
22,62%
25,89%
32,29%
43,67%
52,49%
65,86%
79,66%
92,75%
100,00%
TOTAL
703
100%
Note:
a
We decided to include within 2013 the documents already published (46
articles) and also the documents “in press” (5 articles). It should be taken
into account that data from 2013 goes from 1st January to 31st May.
198
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
A.3Dispersion of the scientific literature over time
Year
Number of
documents
Journal
1990
Harvard Business Review
European Management Journal
Journal of Dental Practice Administration
American Psychologist
AIDS Care - Psychological and Socio-Medical Aspects of AIDS/HIV
Administrative radiology
1991
Medical Journal of Australia
Brain Injury
1992
Harvard Business Review
Organizational Dynamics
The Health Care Supervisor
Journal of Post Anesthesia Nursing
Journal of Clinical Engineering
American Journal of Psychotherapy
1993
Journal of Business Venturing
The Journal of Biocommunication
Long Range Planning
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
Group & Organization Management
1994
Organization Science
Nursing Management
European Journal of Operational Research
1995
Nursing Management
RAND Journal of Economics
Dental Economics
Creativity Research Journal
1996
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources
Public Personnel Management
Academy of Management Journal
Physician Executive
World Journal of Surgery
Rehabilitation Nursing: The official Journal of the Association of
Rehabilitation Nurses
Library Trends
Home care provider
199
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
8
3
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Appendix A: Additional data
Year
Number of
documents
Journal
1997
Research Policy
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Journal of Financial Intermediation
Gender, Work and Organization
International Journal of Technology Management
Training & Development
Medical Group Management Journal
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Corporate environmental strategy
1998
Academy of Management Executive
Physician Executive
Perspectives in Psychiatric Care
Nature Biotechnology
International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance Incorporating
Leadership in Health
1999
Human Resource Management
European Management Journal
Interfaces
Nursing Times
Public Personnel Management
Forbes
Journal of Health Care Finance
Business History
AAOHN journal
2000
Harvard Business Review
Human Resource Management
Human Resource Management Review
Academy of Management Journal
Training & Development
Forbes
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Journal of Creative Behavior
Hospital Materiel Management Quarterly
200
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
2
1
1
1
1
10
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Year
Number of
documents
Journal
2001
Harvard Business Review
Journal of Financial Economics
Journal of International Management
Financial Analysts Journal
International Journal of Manpower
Technovation
Hospitals & Health Networks
The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health
Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association
International Journal of Social Welfare
Indian Journal of Social Work
Healthcare financial management
American Journal of Education
2002
Harvard Business Review
Journal of World Business
Academic Medicine
Research Technology Management
Journal of Management Studies
Academy of Management Journal
Technology in Society
Production and Operations Management
Local Government Studies
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Hospital Quarterly
2003
Harvard Business Review
Public Personnel Management
Review of Financial Studies
Review of Economics and Statistics
Portal
Journal of Nursing Education
Dyslexia
Developing Economies
Business History Review
201
14
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Appendix A: Additional data
Year
Number of
documents
Journal
2004
Harvard Business Review
Human Resource Management Review
Small Business Economics
Human Relations
T and D
Journal of Management Development
Nursing Administration Quarterly
Medical Teacher
High Ability Studies
2005
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Harvard Business Review
Human Resource Management
T and D
Journal of Management Development
Asia Pacific Business Review
Sport Management Review
Journal of Business Ethics
Benefits Quarterly
Supply Chain Management
Strategy and Leadership
International Journal of Technology Management
Academy of Management Journal
Journal of Organizational Excellence
Hospitals & Health Networks
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Women in Management Review
Nursing Education Perspectives
Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences
Minnesota medicine
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Journal of Healthcare Information Management
Healthcare Executive
Gifted Child Quarterly
European Journal of Social Psychology
2006
Industrial and Commercial Training
Harvard Business Review
Human Resource Management Review
MIT Sloan Management Review
Journal of Knowledge Management
Management Decision
202
13
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
31
3
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
23
1
2
2
1
1
1
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Year
Number of
documents
Journal
2006 (Continued)
Management Science
The Journal of medical practice management
Public Personnel Management
The Journal of Health Administration Education
Journal of Organizational Excellence
Technology in Society
Journal of Business Venturing
The Learning Organization
Journal of Nursing Administration
Journal of Finance
Econtent
Critical Review
American Behavioral Scientist
AFE Facilities Engineering Journal
2007
Harvard Business Review
Global Business and Organizational Excellence
T and D
Healthcare financial management
Employee Relations
Journal of European Industrial Training
Public Personnel Management
Organization Development Journal
International Journal of Technology Management
The Journal of Health Administration Education
Technovation
Projections
Paper360
Newspaper Techniques
Medical Education
Leadership in Health Services
Journal of Management Inquiry
Journal of Management Development
Journal of Labor Economics
Journal of Healthcare Management
Journal of Business Communication
International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance
Evaluation
Indian Journal of Medical Research
IET Engineering Management
European Journal of Social Sciences
Current Opinion in Anesthesiology
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly
203
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
45
7
1
3
1
2
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Appendix A: Additional data
Year
Number of
documents
Journal
2007 (Continued)
Contemporary Nurse
Clinical Leadership & Management Review
Business Process Management Journal
Journal of the American College of Radiology
2008
Industrial and Commercial Training
Harvard Business Review
Human Resource Management
Business Horizons
Global Business and Organizational Excellence
T and D
Journal of Management Development
Asia Pacific Business Review
MIT Sloan Management Review
Academic Medicine
Journal of Business Strategy
The Journal of medical practice management
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Transportation Journal
Research Technology Management
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Journal of Business Ethics
Benefits Quarterly
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management
Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice
Strategy and Leadership
Public Personnel Management
McKinsey Quarterly
Journal of Workplace Learning
Organization Development Journal
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence
Service Oriented Computing and Applications
Scottish Journal of Political Economy
Science and Public Policy
Qualitative Sociology
Personality and Individual Differences
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Management Research News
Management in Education
Leadership Quarterly
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Journal of Supply Chain Management
204
1
1
1
1
80
4
10
1
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
2
1
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Year
Number of
documents
Journal
2008 (Continued)
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Journal of Health Organization and Management
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems
International Journal of Sports Psysiology and Performance
International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development
International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital
Educational Management Administration and Leadership
Critical Perspectives on International Business
Consulting Psychology Journal
Chinese Management Studies
Asian Case Research Journal
Anthropologist
2009
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Human Resource Management International Digest
Industrial and Commercial Training
Harvard Business Review
Human Resource Management
Human Resource Management Review
Global Business and Organizational Excellence
Journal of Management
Small Business Economics
T and D
Journal of Management Development
Advances in Developing Human Resources
Academic Medicine
Journal of Business Strategy
Healthcare financial management
Research Technology Management
Journal of International Management
Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Corporate Governance
Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice
Strategy and Leadership
International Journal of Manpower
Gender, Work and Organization
The Oklahoma Nurse
Specialty Fabrics Review
Review of Public Personnel Administration
Review of Economic Studies
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management
Publishing Executive
205
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
62
3
3
5
1
3
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Appendix A: Additional data
Year
Number of
documents
Journal
2009 (Continued)
Political Quarterly
Personnel Psychology
Organisation Management Journal
Miss Quarterly Executive
Medicine and Sport Science
Journal of Service Management
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Education Policy
Journal of Blood Services Management
International Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management
Geoforum
Financial Management
European Business Review
Ergonomics in Design
Development and Learning in Organisations
Current Opinion in Critical Care
Collegium Antropologicum
2010
Human Resource Management International Digest
Industrial and Commercial Training
Harvard Business Review
Human Resource Management
Global Business and Organizational Excellence
Journal of World Business
Journal of Financial Economics
Scandinavian Journal of Management
Journal of Management
T and D
Cross Cultural Management
Psychologist-Manager Journal
Journal of Knowledge Management
Advances in Developing Human Resources
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal
Journal of Nursing Management
African Journal of Business Management
Healthcare financial management
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Transportation Journal
Journal of Business and Psychology
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences
Academy of Management Perspectives
Knowledge Management Research and Practice
206
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
94
2
2
1
1
1
10
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Year
Number of
documents
Journal
2010 (Continued)
Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies
Employee Relations
Journal of European Industrial Training
Journal of Management Studies
Journal of Financial Intermediation
Total Quality Management
Talent Development and Excellence
Strategy and Leadership
Strategic Direction
Sport in Society
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies
Public Organization Review
Professional Development in Education
Personnel Review
Nursing Clinics of North America
Nonprofit Management & Leadership
Management International Review
JPT, Journal of Petroleum Technology
Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
Journal of Sociology
Journal of Safety Research
Journal of Public Economics
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism
Journal of Electronic Commerce Research
Journal of Business Strategy
Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network
Internet Reference Services Quarterly
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research
International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge
Development
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
International Journal of Educational Management
International Journal of Educational Advancement
International Journal of Disclosure and Governance
International Journal of Cultural Policy
International Journal of Arts Management
International Business Management
Industry and Innovation
Industrial Management (Norcross, Georgia)
High Ability Studies
207
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Appendix A: Additional data
Year
Number of
documents
Journal
2010 (Continued)
Graziadio Business Report
Flexo
Entrepreneurial Executive
Critical Studies in Education
Computers & Mathematics with applications
Career Development International
Canadian Geographer-Geographe Canadien
Bristish Journal of Community Nursing
Australian Journal of Management
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
Asian Studies Review
Asian Journal of Management Cases
2011
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Human Resource Management International Digest
Industrial and Commercial Training
Harvard Business Review
Human Resource Management Review
Journal of World Business
Journal of Financial Economics
Asia Pacific Journal of Management
T and D
Journal of Management Development
Asia Pacific Business Review
Human Resource Management Journal
Psychologist-Manager Journal
Journal of Knowledge Management
Management Decision
Actual Problems of Economics
European Journal of International Management
Journal of Business Strategy
Asian Social Science
African Journal of Business Management
The Journal of medical practice management
Healthcare financial management
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Transportation Journal
Journal of Business and Psychology
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences
Academy of Management Perspectives
Research Technology Management
Journal of International Management
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
208
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
97
5
4
3
4
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
7
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Number of
documents
Year
Journal
2011
(Continued)
Journal of Business Ethics
Benefits Quarterly
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management
Supply Chain Management
Interfaces
Financial Analysts Journal
Nursing Times
U. S. Army Medical Department Journal
The Hague Journal of Diplomacy
Phi Delta Kappan
Measuring Business Excellence
Management Learning
Life Science Journal
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing
Journal for East European Management Studies
International Journal of Training and Development
International Journal of Construction Education and Research
International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications
Human Systems Management
Health Care Management Review
Global Business Review
Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal
European Sport Management Quarterly
European Journal of Marketing
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
Educational Administration Quarterly
Corporate Reputation Review
Compare
Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice
Chinese Education and Society
China Nonprofit Review
Business Strategy Series
British Journal of Industrial Relations
Asian Academy of Management Journal
Academy of Strategic Management Journal
2012
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Human Resource Management International Digest
Industrial and Commercial Training
Harvard Business Review
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources
209
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
92
5
4
3
3
6
Appendix A: Additional data
Number of
documents
Year
Journal
2012
(Continued)
Personnel Review
Human Resource Management
Business Horizons
Human Resource Management Review
Global Business and Organizational Excellence
T and D
Journal of Management Development
Asia Pacific Business Review
Cross Cultural Management
MIT Sloan Management Review
Sport Management Review
Organizational Dynamics
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review
Development and Learning in Organisations
Human Resource Management Journal
Psychologist-Manager Journal
Journal of Knowledge Management
Management Decision
Actual Problems of Economics
Advances in Developing Human Resources
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal
Journal of Nursing Management
Academic Medicine
Organization Science
Management Science
World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable
Development
World Applied Sciences Journal
Thunderbird International Business Review
School Leadership and Management
Risk Management and Insurance Review
Radiology Management
Quality Management in Health Care
Public Money and Management
Panoeconomicus
Nursing Standard
Marketing Theory
Managing Leisure
Library Management
Journal of Vocational Behavior
Journal of Social Psychology
Journal of Risk and Insurance
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management
210
3
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Number of
documents
Year
Journal
2012
(Continued)
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
Journal of Comparative Economics
International Paperworld IPW
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications: A
Leading Journal of Supply Chain Management
International Journal of Logistics Management
International Journal of Information Processing and Management
International Business Management
English Language Teaching
Economic and Social Review
Construction Management and Economics
Canadian Public Administration
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Annals of Regional Science
Advances in Management
2013
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Human Resource Management International Digest
Industrial and Commercial Training
Harvard Business Review
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources
Personnel Review
Human Resource Management
Business Horizons
Human Resource Management Review
Global Business and Organizational Excellence
Journal of World Business
Journal of Financial Economics
Asia Pacific Journal of Management
Scandinavian Journal of Management
Journal of Management
Small Business Economics
European Management Journal
Research Policy
Human Relations
Quarterly Journal of Economics
Marine Policy
Learning Organization
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
International Journal of Strategic Communication
International Journal of Innovation and Learning
International Business Review
211
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
46
10
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Appendix A: Additional data
Number of
documents
Year
Journal
2013
(Continued)
Industrial Marketing Management
Gender in Management
Economic Inquiry
Critical Perspectives on International Business
Business Ethics: A European Review
Advanced Science Letters
1
1
1
1
1
1
European Management Journal
Journal of International Management
Journal of International Migration and Integration
International Journal of Project Management
International Journal of Management Reviews
5
1
1
1
1
1
in
press
212
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
A.4Validity of Lotka’s Law by the generalized inverse power method
A.4.1 Brief theoretical explanation
The generalized expression of Lotka’s law is:
yx = C ×x-n
(1)
where,y is the probability than one author publishx articles about a topic, and the
exponent (n) and the constant (C) are parametres to be estimated from a given set of
autor productivity data.
The main elements involved in the model adjustment by the inverse power method are
(Urbizagástegui, 2005):
1) Measurement and tabulation: the number of authors contributing to a concrete
number of articles should be organized in a table of decreasing frequencies of N
pairs x, y. In constrast with Lotka who only took in account the first signer of an
article, co-authors were considered when tabulating the data. Indeed, at present,
when collaboration is the rule in research, measurements that do not take into
account co-authors are invalid.
2) The adopted model: Here the adopted model is the generalized inverse power
one:
3) Estimation of the nparameter: The n value is calculated by using the leastsquares methodology described by Pao (1985), and by using the following
formula:
(2)
Being,N the number of data pairs observed; Xthe base-10 logarithm of x; and, Ythe
base-10 logarithm of y
213
Appendix A: Additional data
4) Estimation of the C parameter: In order to estimate it, Pao (1985, 1986)
proporcionated this formula:
(3)
Being,P the number of data pairs xy observed.
5) The goodness-of fit statistical test: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) testis a nonparametric test that asserts that the observed author productivity distribution is
not significantly different from a theoretical distribution. It is better than the chisquared test since it is easier to use and it does not need that the data is grouped
in frequencies inferior to 5 (cf. Urbizagástegui, 2005).It is based on the absolute
maximum difference (Dmax) between the observed and theoretical cumulative
frequency distributions. If the absolute maximum difference is less than the K-S
critical value, then the null hypothesis is accepted (i.e., that the observed and the
theoretical distributions are distributed the same).
A.4.2 Results of the study
The observed frequency distribution of our sample is:
214
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
From the previous figure we clearly see that few authors published more than two
articles on TM. In short, the great majority of articles are written by only one author.
In order to see if this distribution fits the Lotka’s Law, let’s start calculating the
exponent nfor talent management literature by using formula (2):
x
y
X
Y
XY
X2
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
1173
76
16
7
1
2
1
0,0000
0,3010
0,4771
0,6021
0,6990
0,7782
1,0000
3,0693
1,8808
1,2041
0,8451
0,0000
0,3010
0,0000
0,0000
0,5662
0,5745
0,5088
0,0000
0,2342
0,0000
0,0000
0,0906
0,2276
0,3625
0,4886
0,6055
1,0000
TOTAL
1276
3,8573 7,3004
1,8837
2,7748
So, N = 7
n = (-14,97)/4,54 = -3,29
The n value in the field of talent management literature (1990-2013) is 3,29 for all
author data.
The constant C for the dataset is calculated using formula (3):
Being P = 7
C = 1/(1,1474+0,00507+0,00082+6,2909E-05) = 0,867.
The C value is 0,867 for n=3,29
Now, we should calculate the theoretical values by using equation (1). Therefore,
For x = 1 (i.e., the number of authors that produced one article)
y1 = 0,867 × (1/(1^3,29)) =0,867
Now, 0,867× 1276 = 1106,34
For x = 2 (i.e., the number of authors that produced two articles)
215
Appendix A: Additional data
y2 = 0,867 × (1/(2^3,29)) =0,0886
Now, 0,0886× 1276 = 113,11
For x = 3 (i.e., the number of authors that produced three articles)
y3 = 0,867 × (1/(3^3,29)) =0,0234
Now, 0,0234× 1276 = 29,80
For x = 4 (i.e., the number of authors that produced four articles)
y4 = 0,867 × (1/(4^3,29)) =0,0091
Now, 0,0091× 1276 = 11,56
For x = 5 (i.e., the number of authors that produced five articles)
y5 = 0,867 × (1/(5^3,29)) =0,0043
Now, 0,0043× 1276 = 5,55
For x = 6 (i.e., the number of authors that produced six articles)
y6 = 0,867 × (1/(6^3,29)) =0,0024
Now, 0,0024× 1276 = 3,05
For x = 10 (i.e., the number of authors that produced ten articles)
y10 = 0,867 × (1/(10^3,29)) =0,0004
Now, 0,0004 × 1276 = 0,57
Hence, the observed and the theoretical frequency of authors are:
x
Observed
Frequencies
Theoretical
Frequencies
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
1173
76
16
7
1
2
1
1106,34
113,11
29,80
11,56
5,55
3,05
0,57
TOTAL
1276
1269,97
216
Disentaangling the “ttalent” conceppt as applied tto the world of work
The fitted lineaar line for authorship
a
distribution
n in talent managemen
m
nt research from
19900 to 2013 results from this
t log-log plot.
ͳ
ͳͲͲͲͲ
ͳͲͲͲ
›α͹ʹͳǡͻšǦ͵ǡʹͻ
;αͲǡͻʹ͹
ͳͲͲ
ͳͲ
ͳ
ͳ
ͳͲ
Ͳǡͳ
Now
w, we need to confirm if this disttribution fitts Lotka’s Law.
L
For ddoing so, we
w are
goingg to use thhe K-S testt. This nonn-parametricc statisticall test quanttifies a disstance
betw
ween the emppirical (observed) distrribution fun
nction of thee sample and the cumullative
distriibution funcction of the theoretical distribution
n. The K-S test is definned by:
H0: The
T observeed distribution fits Lotk
ka’s Law
H1: The
T observeed distribution does no
ot fit Lotka’s Law
Dmax) consists in the maximum
m
ddistance bettween
The Kolmogoroov-Smirnov statistic (D
the observed
o
andd expected cumulative distribution
ns. Thereforre, we needd to build an
nother
tablee that allow us to calcullate this stattistic.
x
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
y
yx yx
(yyx yx)
C (1 xn)
[C (1 xn)]]
Dmax
11173
76
16
7
1
2
1
0,91993
0,05996
0,01225
0,00555
0,00008
0,00116
0,00008
0,9193
0,9788
0,9914
0,9969
0,9976
0,9992
1
0,8670
0,0886
0,0234
0,0091
0,0043
0,0024
0,0004
0,867
0,956
0,979
0,988
0,992
0,995
0,995
0,0523
0,0232
0,0124
0,0088
0,0052
0,0044
0,0048
217
Appendix A: Additional data
The hypothesis regarding the fit with Lotka’s law of the observed distribution is rejected
if the statistic Dmax is greater than the critical value obtained from the distribution table
for the K-S test (see, A.4.3). The K-S critical value at 0,01 level of significance is
calculated as
ଵǡ଺ଷ
ξஊ௬
critical value is
, as suggested from the table distribution. So, for this sample the K-S
ଵǡ଺ଷ
ξଵଶ଻଺
ൌ ૙ǡ ૙૝૞૟૜.
For the present case, Dmax is 0,0523 and the K-S critical valuefor a significance level of
0,01 is 0,0456. Since the critical value is smaller than the statistic, the null hypothesis
that the data fit a Lotka distribution is rejected. The null hypothesis is only accepted
for a significance level of 0,001 (v.c. = 0,05458).
The dispersion between both distributions can be observed in next figure. In fact, we
can observe that except from the first level of productivity, the rest levels have little
grade of dispersion.
This maximum distance is what
force us to reject Ho at all levels
of significance but at 0,001
218
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
A.4.3 Kolmogorov-Smirnov distribution table
Level of significance ()
219
Appendix B: Outcomes of this dissertation
A.5Geographic distribution of TM research (1990-2013)
Country
United States
United Kingdom
Australia
Canada
India
China
The Netherlands
Taiwan
Ireland
France
Spain
Germany
Finland
Belgium
South Africa
Singapore
Denmark
Sweden
Austria
Iran
Italy
Malaysia
New Zealand
Thailand
Hong Kong
Number of
documents
Country
714
194
73
57
48
39
38
35
32
27
24
21
18
17
12
11
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
7
6
Japan
Switzerland
Israel
Iceland
Pakistan
Croatia
Mexico
Portugal
South Korea
Czech Republic
Brazil
Greece
Kenya
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sudan
Sultanate of Oman
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
Total
220
Number of
documents
6
6
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1484
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
A.6GDP per capita and population data of TM related countries
GDP section from 1,710 to 19,487
Country
Kenya
Sudan
Pakistan
India
Philippines
China
Thailand
South Africa
Iran
Brazil
Serbia
Malaysia
Mexico
Turkey
Croatia
GDP per capita Docs per million population
1710
2325
2745
3650
4119
8400
8646
10960
11508
11640
11887
16051
16588
17110
19487
0,026
0,029
0,031
0,040
0,011
0,029
0,107
0,232
0,106
0,005
0,139
0,282
0,027
0,014
0,700
GDP section from 20,328 to 39,456
Country
Taiwan
Poland
Russia
Slovakia
Portugal
Greece
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Oman
Israel
South Korea
New Zealand
Spain
Italy
Japan
France
United Kingdom
Iceland
Finland
Belgium
Germany
GDP per capita Docs per million population
20328
21085
22408
24095
25564
25852
26632
26943
28684
28809
29834
31082
32087
32672
33668
35247
35598
36483
37455
38723
39456
1,5187
0,0260
0,0070
0,1853
0,2840
0,0925
0,1916
0,4859
0,3606
0,6746
0,0618
1,9308
0,5126
0,1401
0,0469
0,4235
3,0705
14,2271
3,3487
1,6511
0,2546
221
Appendix B: Outcomes of this dissertation
GDP section from 40,420 to 60,688
Country
Canada
Ireland
Denmark
Sweden
Australia
Austria
The Netherlands
United Arab Emirates
United States
Hong Kong
Switzerland
Norway
Singapore
Canada
Ireland
GDP per capita Docs per million population
40420
40868
40933
41484
41974
42172
42779
47893
48112
50551
51227
60392
60688
40420
40868
1,7027
6,9743
1,6825
1,0027
3,3599
0,9959
2,3595
0,2435
2,3126
0,8486
0,8233
0,2008
2,9164
1,7027
6,9743
222
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
A.7Academic and non academic contributions to TM literature per country
Country
United States
United Kingdom
Australia
Canada
India
China
France
Taiwan
Germany
The Netherlands
Spain
South Africa
Finland
Belgium
Italy
Malaysia
Sweden
Denmark
Iran
Ireland
Thailand
Austria
Hong Kong
Japan
New Zealand
Israel
Singapore
Switzerland
Pakistan
Portugal
South Korea
Brazil
Croatia
Czech Republic
Greece
Iceland
Kenya
Mexico
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sudan
Sultanate of Oman
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
TOTAL
Academic
162
60
25
22
13
19
16
16
14
15
10
5
8
6
5
5
6
4
5
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
2
3
1
2
2
Non academic
170
25
6
4
13
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
465
245
223
Total of Affiliations
332
85
31
26
26
21
18
18
16
16
11
9
8
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
710
Appendix B: Outcomes of this dissertation
A.8Number of documents published in journals with IF
Number of
docs with IF
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2013
Number of
docs
6
2
8
5
3
4
8
9
6
10
11
14
17
12
13
31
23
45
79
63
94
97
92
51
51
TOTAL
703
208
Year
6
1
6
9
9
12
10
8
13
10
13
24
19
32
36
Note: The shaded area means that no data was available.
224
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
A.9Top 40 most cited authors by Scopus and Google Scholar
GOOGLE SCHOLAR
Number of
Position Author
citations
obtained 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Miller, D.
Shamsie, J.
Drucker, P. F.
Conger, J. A.
Cappelli, P.
Gagné, F.
Bosma, N.
de Wit, G.
Thurik, R.
van Praag, M.
Godet, M.
Nohria, N.
Collings, D. G.
Macmillan, I. C.
Siegel, E.
Siegel, R.
Bhattacharya, C. B.
Korschun, D.
Sen, S.
Heckman, R. J.
Lewis, R. E.
Zhao, M.
Banaji, M. R.
Bazerman, M. H.
Chugh, D.
Bhatnagar, J.
Drazin, R.
Fulmer, R. M.
Rao, H.
Smallwood, N.
Ulrich, D.
Mellahi, K.
Thomas, D. A.
Joyce, W. F.
Roberson, B.
Sparrow, P.
Caselli, F.
Gennaioli, N.
Rajgopal, S.
Shevlin, T.
1228
1228
767
530
385
350
335
335
335
335
249
236
230
223
223
223
207
207
207
206
206
204
202
202
202
198
190
190
190
188
188
183
181
175
175
169
157
157
148
148
SCOPUS
Position Author
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
225
Cappelli, P.
Godet, M.
Conger, J. A.
Collings, D. G.
Mellahi, K.
Bhatnagar, J.
Heckman, R. J.
Lewis, R. E.
Sparrow, P.
Zhao, M.
Scullion, H.
Macmillan, I. C.
Siegel, E.
Siegel, R.
Darby, M. R.
Zucker, L. G.
Kossek, E. E.
Ozeki, C.
Roberts, K.
Gagné, F.
Marshall, C. R.
Zenger, T. R.
Smallwood, N.
Ulrich, D.
Boswell, W. R.
Cavanaugh, M. A.
Joyce, W. F.
Moynihan, L. M.
Roehling, M. V.
Nohria, N.
Roberson, B.
Hiltrop, J. M.
Saleh, S. D.
Wang, C. K.
Hayes, R. H.
Mian, S.
O'Connor, G. C.
Ferlie, E.
Harvey, J.
Pettigrew, A.
Number of
citations
obtained
127
106
103
102
83
69
67
67
67
67
66
64
64
64
57
57
55
55
55
52
50
50
47
47
44
44
44
44
44
43
43
42
42
42
39
37
37
36
36
36
Appendix B: Outcomes of this dissertation
A.10 Correlations among number of authors and citations
For doing these correlations analysis, since we are comparing data from three diferent
databases (Google Scholar, Scopus, and ISI WoS), we only take into consideration
those articles for which we have all the data. So, the total sample of articles was: 131
articles. Next, we are going to detail the different tables of results indicating the period
of time or year considered. It should be noted that the analysis was not possible for
1998 and 1999 due to the insufficient number of observations (1 and 2, respectively).
Period of time: 1997-2013. Sample: 131 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
1.00
0.05
-0.12
-0.08
-0.05
0.05
1.00
0.13
0.13
0.12
-0.12
0.13
1.00
0.88
0.80
-0.08
0.13
0.88
1.00
0.94
-0.05
0.12
0.80
0.94
1.00
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
1.00
0.61
-0.51
-0.41
-0.37
0.61
1.00
-0.21
-0.07
-0.09
-0.51
-0.21
1.00
0.98
0.98
-0.41
-0.07
0.98
1.00
1.00
-0.37
-0.09
0.98
1.00
1.00
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
ͳǤͲͲ
ǦͲǤͶͷ
ǦͲǤͶ͵
ǦͲǤ͵ͳ
ǦͲǤ͵Ͳ
ǦͲǤͶͷ
ͳǤͲͲ
ǦͲǤʹʹ
ǦͲǤ͵ͷ
ǦͲǤʹ͹
ǦͲǤͶ͵
ǦͲǤʹʹ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻ͸
ͲǤͻ͹
ǦͲǤ͵ͳ
ǦͲǤ͵ͷ
ͲǤͻ͸
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻͻ
ǦͲǤ͵Ͳ
ǦͲǤʹ͹
ͲǤͻ͹
ͲǤͻͻ
ͳǤͲͲ
Year: 1997. Sample: 5 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
Year: 2000. Sample: 6 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
226
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Year: 2001. Sample: 7 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
ͳǤͲͲ
ǦͲǤͷͳ
ǦͲǤʹͲ
ǦͲǤʹʹ
ǦͲǤͳ͵
ǦͲǤͷͳ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤ͸ͷ
ͲǤ͸Ͳ
ͲǤͷ͹
ǦͲǤʹͲ
ͲǤ͸ͷ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻͻ
ͲǤͻͺ
ǦͲǤʹʹ
ͲǤ͸Ͳ
ͲǤͻͻ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻͺ
ǦͲǤͳ͵
ͲǤͷ͹
ͲǤͻͺ
ͲǤͻͺ
ͳǤͲͲ
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
ͳǤͲͲ
ǦͲǤͶͳ
ͲǤͺͲ
ͲǤͺ͸
ͲǤͺͶ
ǦͲǤͶͳ
ͳǤͲͲ
ǦͲǤͳͻ
ǦͲǤͶ͵
ǦͲǤ͵ͻ
ͲǤͺͲ
ǦͲǤͳͻ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻ͹
ͲǤͻͺ
ͲǤͺ͸
ǦͲǤͶ͵
ͲǤͻ͹
ͳǤͲͲ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͺͶ
ǦͲǤ͵ͻ
ͲǤͻͺ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͳǤͲͲ
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻ͵
ͲǤ͹͸
ͲǤͻ͵
ͲǤͺ͸
ͲǤͻ͵
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻͳ
ͲǤͻ͹
ͲǤͻͳ
ͲǤ͹͸
ͲǤͻͳ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻͶ
ͲǤ͹Ͷ
ͲǤͻ͵
ͲǤͻ͹
ͲǤͻͶ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͺʹ
ͲǤͺ͸
ͲǤͻͳ
ͲǤ͹Ͷ
ͲǤͺʹ
ͳǤͲͲ
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤ͸͹
ǦͲǤͶ͵
ǦͲǤʹ͸
ǦͲǤͶͻ
ͲǤ͸͹
ͳǤͲͲ
ǦͲǤʹͻ
ǦͲǤͳ͸
ǦͲǤʹͲ
ǦͲǤͶ͵
ǦͲǤʹͻ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻ͵
ͲǤͻͷ
ǦͲǤʹ͸
ǦͲǤͳ͸
ͲǤͻ͵
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻ͸
ǦͲǤͶͻ
ǦͲǤʹͲ
ͲǤͻͷ
ͲǤͻ͸
ͳǤͲͲ
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͷ͵
ͲǤ͸ͷ
ͲǤ͵ͻ
ͲǤʹͻ
ͲǤͷ͵
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤʹͳ
ǦͲǤͳͺ
ǦͲǤͳͺ
ͲǤ͸ͷ
ͲǤʹͳ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͺʹ
ͲǤͺʹ
ͲǤ͵ͻ
ǦͲǤͳͺ
ͲǤͺʹ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻ͵
ͲǤʹͻ
ǦͲǤͳͺ
ͲǤͺʹ
ͲǤͻ͵
ͳǤͲͲ
Year: 2002. Sample: 5 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
Year: 2003. Sample: 6 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
Year: 2004. Sample: 5 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
Year: 2005. Sample: 9 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
227
Appendix B: Outcomes of this dissertation
Year: 2006. Sample: 4 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤʹͷ
ͲǤͺͶ
ͲǤͺͳ
ͲǤͻʹ
ͲǤʹͷ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤ͵ͳ
ͲǤͶ͸
ͲǤͷͺ
ͲǤͺͶ
ͲǤ͵ͳ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻͻ
ͲǤͺͻ
ͲǤͺͳ
ͲǤͶ͸
ͲǤͻͻ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻ͵
ͲǤͻʹ
ͲǤͷͺ
ͲǤͺͻ
ͲǤͻ͵
ͳǤͲͲ
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͲͲ
ͲǤͶͶ
ͲǤͷͲ
ͲǤͷͳ
ͲǤͲͲ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤ͵ͺ
ͲǤʹ͸
ͲǤ͵ͺ
ͲǤͶͶ
ͲǤ͵ͺ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻͳ
ͲǤͻͶ
ͲǤͷͲ
ͲǤʹ͸
ͲǤͻͳ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͺͻ
ͲǤͷͳ
ͲǤ͵ͺ
ͲǤͻͶ
ͲǤͺͻ
ͳǤͲͲ
Year: 2007. Sample: 9 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
Year: 2008. Sample: 16 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͲͺ
ǦͲǤͶͻ
ǦͲǤͶ͸
ǦͲǤͶͺ
ͲǤͲͺ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤ͵͹
ͲǤͷͷ
ͲǤͷ͵
ǦͲǤͶͻ
ͲǤ͵͹
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͺ͸
ͲǤ͸Ͳ
ǦͲǤͶ͸
ͲǤͷͷ
ͲǤͺ͸
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻͲ
ǦͲǤͶͺ
ͲǤͷ͵
ͲǤ͸Ͳ
ͲǤͻͲ
ͳǤͲͲ
Year: 2009. Sample: 11 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
ͳǤͲͲ
ǦͲǤͲͳ
ǦͲǤʹ͵
ͲǤͲͲ
ǦͲǤͲ͹
ǦͲǤͲͳ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͳͶ
ǦͲǤͲʹ
ǦͲǤͲͶ
ǦͲǤʹ͵
ͲǤͳͶ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻͶ
ͲǤͻͲ
ͲǤͲͲ
ǦͲǤͲʹ
ͲǤͻͶ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻ͸
ǦͲǤͲ͹
ǦͲǤͲͶ
ͲǤͻͲ
ͲǤͻ͸
ͳǤͲͲ
Year: 2010. Sample: 21 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤ͸Ͳ
ͲǤͶͺ
ͲǤͶ͵
ͲǤͶͳ
ͲǤ͸Ͳ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤ͸͹
ͲǤͷ͹
ͲǤͷ͸
ͲǤͶͺ
ͲǤ͸͹
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͺͶ
ͲǤ͹ͺ
ͲǤͶ͵
ͲǤͷ͹
ͲǤͺͶ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻ͹
ͲǤͶͳ
ͲǤͷ͸
ͲǤ͹ͺ
ͲǤͻ͹
ͳǤͲͲ
228
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Year: 2011. Sample: 24 articles.
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
NUMAUTOR
IMPF
NCGSCHOLAR
NCSCOPUS
NCISI
ͳǤͲͲ
ǦͲǤʹ͵
ǦͲǤͳͳ
ǦͲǤͳͲ
ǦͲǤͲͻ
ǦͲǤʹ͵
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͶͻ
ͲǤͶ͵
ͲǤͶͻ
ǦͲǤͳͳ
ͲǤͶͻ
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤ͸͸
ͲǤ͸ͺ
ǦͲǤͳͲ
ͲǤͶ͵
ͲǤ͸͸
ͳǤͲͲ
ͲǤͻͷ
ǦͲǤͲͻ
ͲǤͶͻ
ͲǤ͸ͺ
ͲǤͻͷ
ͳǤͲͲ
229
Appendix B: Outcomes of this dissertation
A.11Details of co-authorship per year
NUMBER OF AUTHORS
YEARS
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
4
4
2
3
1
3
5
4
5
8
7
15
23
16
37
28
32
16
1
2
1
3
1
2
4
4
2
7
3
4
16
11
24
22
22
13
223
145
4
5
7
8
12
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
2
5
6
8
4
8
4
1
2
1
2
4
44
12
230
1
1
1
1
2
1
TOTAL
3
2
2
3
2
2
5
6
3
6
4
6
9
8
8
17
13
22
44
34
71
56
65
37
428
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
A.12Information on the kind of collaboration per year
YEAR
International
collaboration
Collaboration within Collaboration with
the same
Spanish
organization
institutions
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2
1
6
8
9
17
15
19
17
3
1
2
3
1
1
4
6
3
3
4
6
8
6
5
8
12
13
29
20
42
37
30
20
TOTAL
100
267
1
1
1
1
1
1
231
1
2
3
3
3
12
Appendix B: Outcomes of this dissertation
A.13Average number of citations
Number of
articles
Average number
of citations
Average number of
citations of papers with
citationsa
1
2
3
4 o más
275
223
145
60
4,83
9,19
7,02
7,03
8,00
14,03
9,62
12,14
TOTAL
703
28,07
43,79
Number of
authors
Note: a This column is calculated taking into account only those papers of each level of number of authors that have
citations, i.e., excluding those papers that have 0 citations.
232
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Appendix B: Outcomes of this dissertation
233
Appendix B: Outcomes of this dissertation
234
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
B.1 Articles in peer-reviewed academic journals
Title:What is the meaning of ‘talent’ in the world of work?
Authors:Gallardo-Gallardo, E.,Dries, N., &González-Cruz, T.
Source:Human Resource Management Review
Volumenin press[Special Issue]
Pages:1-11
Published: 2013
ISSN: 1053-4822
Indexed in: ISIJournal Citation Reports
Impact Factor: 2,375 [Management, Q1]
Indexed in: SJR (SCImago Journal Rank) Impact Factor: 1,255
Title:Gestión del talento en la empresa española. Rol del departamento de recursos
humanos
Authors:Gallardo-Gallardo, E., González-Cruz, T., Martínez-Fuentes, C., & Pardo-delVal, M.
Source:Revista Venezolana de Gerencia
Volume:17 Issue: 58
Pages:232-252
Published: 2012
ISSN: 1053-4822
Indexed in: ISI Journal Citation Reports Impact Factor: 0,074 [Management, Q4]
Articles under revision:
Title:Talent Identification: A Multidisciplinary Review of Different Components
Authors:Nijs, S., Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N. & Sels, L.
Source:Journal of World Business
Indexed in: ISI Journal Citation Reports Impact Factor: 2,383 [Business, Q1]
Indexed in: SJR (SCImago Journal Rank) Impact Factor: 1,019
B.2Working papers
Title:What do we actually mean by talent in business?
Authors:Gallardo-Gallardo, E.
Source:Documents de Treball de la Facultat d’Economia i Empresa (UB). Col·lecció
d’Economia, E11/258
Included in: New Economics Papers (NEP) [It can be accessed at:
http://ideas.repec.org/n/nep-cbe/2011-09-22.html]
235
Appendix B: Outcomes of this dissertation
B.3International scientific conferences
Title:Who, Where, When and How of talent management: A bibliometric analysis
Authors:Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Nijs, S., Gallo, P.,& Dries, N.
Conference:8th International Conference of the Dutch HRM Network
Venue: Leuven (Belgium) Year: 2013
Title:The Who, Where, When and How of talent management?
Authors:Gallardo-Gallardo, E., &Dries, N.
Conference:IX International Workshop on Human Resource Management
Venue: Cádiz
Year: 2013 (Postponed by the organization committtee)
Title:What is meant by talent in business?
Authors:Gallardo-Gallardo, E.
Conference:Academy of Management Annual Meeting[Symposium: Building Talent
Management Theory: Definitions, Typologies, Propositions]
Venue: Boston (United States)
Year: 2012
Title:What is meant by talent in business?
Authors:Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T.
Conference:EIASM 1st Workshop on Talent Management
Venue: Brussels (Belgium) Year: 2012
Title:What do we actually mean by talent in business?
Authors:Gallardo-Gallardo, E.
Conference:VIII International Workshop on HRM
Venue: Seville (Spain)
Year: 2011
Pending of acceptance:
Title:A bibliometric analysis of TM research from 1990-2013: Productivity, impact and
collaboration
Authors:Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Gallo, P., & Dries, N.
Conference:2nd Workshop on Talent Management
Venue: Brussels (Belgium) Year: 2013
236
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Title:A historical review of TM research: 1990-2013
Authors:Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Nijs, S., Gallo, P., & Dries, N.
Conference:2nd Workshop on Talent Management
Venue: Brussels (Belgium) Year: 2013
B.4 National scientific conferences
Title:Talento: Definición y percepción de gestión en la empresa española
Authors:Gallardo-Gallardo, E., González-Cruz, T., Martínez, C., & Pardo-del-Val, M.
Conference:XXI Congreso Nacional de la Asociación Científica de Economía y
Dirección de la Empresa (ACEDE)
Venue: Barcelona (Spain) Year: 2011
B.5Newspaper article
Title:Per què li diuen gestió del talent quan volen dir gestió de recursos humans?
Authors:Gallardo-Gallardo, E.
Source:Món Empresarial
Volume:April Page:18
Published: 2012
237
Appendix B: Number and nature of documents retrieved from BSP and PsycINFO databases
238
Disentangling the “talent” concept as applied to the world of work
Science is not a cut-and-dried body of knowledge, which someone has collected once
and for all: it is an attitude of mind, a way of finding out. Unless these facts are
appreciated, science degenerates into mere scholarship and its study has a narrowing
instead of broadening effect on the mind.
J. E. Holsmstrom
[Cited in Petre, M., & Rugg, G. (2012). The unwritten rules of PhD research. 2nd ed. Berkshire: Open University Press, p. 116]
239